Direction of Government
Wednesday, 2 September 2026
Contributions
Statement
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 1 September.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the direction in which I will lead our country.
I come before this House having visited each of the regions and nations of the UK over the past six weeks, and Ukraine on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its independence. The UK’s steadfast support has helped sustain Ukraine’s resolve over the past four and a half years, and particularly so in the last two. That was the achievement of my predecessor and, as he stands down from this place, I want to pay tribute to my right honourable and learned friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Keir Starmer. He has given this country a lifetime of public service, particularly for those fighting for justice. When he delivered in this House on his promise to the Hillsborough families and everyone involved in the Hillsborough law campaign, it was a moment that I will never forget. His leadership took our party from one of its worst defeats to its best victories, and created a platform to change this country for the better. We will use it well, and we wish his family the very best for the future.
The position that my right honourable and learned friend took on Ukraine, building on the work of his predecessors as Prime Minister, is one that I will not change, whatever the threats that we face. We do not seek escalation, but instead will stand firm in providing what help we can to enable Ukraine to defend itself from this illegal invasion. Britain’s defence starts in Ukraine, and the defence of our nation will always be my first priority.
On public safety, I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were killed in the line of duty on the A66. We will do our best to support the Middlesbrough community, which is hurting and grieving right now, and we hear the call from the Members of this House who represent it for a discussion about investment in policing and police numbers.
I know that I also speak for the whole House in expressing my profound shock and horror at the devastating scenes on the Nepal-China border. My sympathies are with all those affected, including the families and loved ones of those missing in this appalling tragedy. The Foreign Secretary is doing everything he can to support the Nepalese Government and British nationals in the region. This is what the climate crisis looks like. We have ourselves just experienced what is likely to have been the hottest summer on record. This Government will meet the climate challenge, and I can confirm to the House that I will attend COP 31 in Turkey in November.
I will build on the work of my predecessor in other areas. When I visited Dover in early August, staff from Border Force and HM Coastguard told me that extra police numbers on French beaches were beginning to deliver real results. I can report to the House today that that has continued throughout the last month, with the numbers arriving over the summer halved on last year, making this year, to date, the lowest for crossings since 2021. Tomorrow, when I welcome President Macron to the UK on the occasion of the opening of the exhibition of the Bayeux tapestry, I will thank him for the co-operation that has enabled us to prevent more than 48,000 people crossing.
Where it is right to do so, I will build on what has been achieved. However, where necessary, I will not hesitate to make changes. One of the first things that I did after taking office was to review the plans to relieve pressure on prison places with the Lord Chancellor, who will provide a full update to the House following my Statement. We took an early decision to exempt rape, grooming and serious child sex offences, and to fast-track work to see whether we could go further, after hearing the calls from the family of PC Andrew Harper and many others. As a result, we are now confirming that anyone convicted of manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving or indecent assault will not see any change in their prison term. We will find additional prison places by deporting more foreign national offenders and finally grasping the nettle on an issue that the House has ignored for too long: indefinite imprisonment for public protection sentences—a now abolished policy, but one which to this day keeps people behind bars despite having already served more than their sentences.
None of this is easy, but I did what I always do: apply my values to a challenging situation and a care for people, which I spoke about in Downing Street. I believe the public will support me in recognising the clear difference between those who have served their time and more, and those who have not. We will bring forward legislation soon, but we can find a solution to end this injustice that balances public safety and basic fairness, and I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to help us do that.
This is politics done differently: problem-solving over point-scoring. It is what the country needs, it is what the public want more of, and it will characterise my time in office. I was pleased to begin cross-party talks over social care in the summer, and I thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the right honourable Member for Daventry, Stuart Andrew, for the spirit in which that endeavour began. I wish the latter well as he leaves the Opposition Front Bench.
When it comes to the biggest issues facing the country—the economy and the cost of living crisis—people are looking for much more substantial change, as promised in our manifesto, and that is what I will bring. Britain is not where any of us would wish it to be. Things are not working as they should. Life is too expensive and too hard for too many. That is why this Government’s first moves were to give businesses and people a little breathing space. On tax, in my first week in office we cut VAT on electricity bills and cut business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues. We reinstated the £2 cap on bus fares for the whole of 2027. These measures will provide some relief. They were funded by reprioritising within government, as the bedrock of our approach will be grounded in fiscal responsibility. But in the long term, lifting growth and living standards will require much more.
What I bring back to the House after 10 years away is a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong. Let me lay it out clearly. From the 1980s, this country took a series of wrong turns. Political power was centralised, economic power privatised and the country deindustrialised. Austerity followed, hollowing out councils and depriving them of the agency to act to reverse any of it, and then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. Change begins with honesty, and I am not hearing much of it this afternoon. Unless we are blunt about what went wrong, we will not turn things around. Far from ‘taking back control’, the combination of those policies took control out of the hands of communities up and down Britain.
For 40 years, too many places have been drifting. Too many British high streets tell the story of this decline. People yearn to see them restored to what they once were, as the Communities Secretary and I heard on our visit to Ilkeston in the summer, but they see no hope if we continue on the same path with a failed economic model, which does not trickle down much to places like theirs and instead allows wealth to be extracted and siphoned out. Britain’s water industry stands as a leaking monument to that approach—a country run in the private rather than the public interest. That is now abundantly clear to voters of all parties, including the Conservative Party.
The Government I lead will be relentless in giving people and places what they were promised 10 years ago: ownership and control. From that control over their destiny comes change and growth. I say this with confidence—I do—and let me explain why. It is backed by a decade of personal experience of turning around one of the UK’s former industrial heartlands and turning it into the fastest-growing city region in the country, bucking the low-growth trend. It has given me a clear theory of growth and I will apply it to all parts of the UK, learning from what has been achieved in Greater Manchester. For a long time, the country did not have ambitions for its regions outside of London. It even talked of the ‘managed decline’ of Liverpool. It took the devolution of power out of this place to allow our big city regions the ability to set new ambitions for themselves. Now, I want every single place across our regions and nations to be able to do the same, creating the conditions for good growth in every postcode.
In that spirit, I was glad to meet the Liberal Democrat leader of Cornwall Council, with my honourable friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, Jayne Kirkham, on my recent visit. I know that, like many rural economies across the UK, Cornwall lacks a basic level of infrastructure, which in turn harms growth and holds back living standards and life chances, and I heard the cross-party call for a devolution deal. I understand concerns in this House about the potential emergence of a two-tier England—those with devolved power and those without—and I will not ignore them. So I have asked No. 10 North to begin work with Cornwall Council and its six MPs on a devolution deal with or without an elected mayor.
I today extend the same offer to all parts of England without devolved power. The First Secretary of State, my right honourable friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley, Louise Haigh, will today write to every Member of this House setting out how they can engage No. 10 North in the service of the places they represent. I extended the same offer to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland when I met them over the summer. As they rightly pointed out, their situations are different, but there is interest in what a local model of devolution could look like in each of the home nations, and we will discuss that with them at a special meeting of the National Economic Council next month.
This Government will oversee the biggest redistribution of power this country has seen. In July, we published a Statement on the next stage of English devolution. It will include powers long requested by mayors, such as: post-16 technical education; employment support; and fiscal devolution, starting with the ability to set an overnight visitor levy to commence towards the end of the financial year 2027-28. The driving force behind it all will be No. 10 North. It will oversee the rewiring of the British state, the rebuilding of resilience in our communities and the reindustrialisation of our regions. The creation of No. 10 North was one of the first acts of this Administration and I believe that in time it will be seen as one of its most significant. It is a clear answer to the question with which this country has long wrestled: who, in government, drives growth? My theory of growth requires it to be driven with the full authority of the very centre of government, in close partnership with HM Treasury.
No. 10 North has been set up with that full focus; the single front door on which regions can knock to get quicker, joined-up decisions from Whitehall, and through which power and resources will be passed to them. Resources will include human resources. This is because a state that has grown too large at the national level now needs to redirect Civil Service capacity regionally and locally, repairing the damage of austerity and making the service of place the state’s first priority. We can already see what is possible. I am glad No. 10 North was able to stand behind Mayor Richard Parker when he took urgent action in August to prevent the collapse of bus services across the West Midlands, and I congratulate Mayor Steve Rotheram who this weekend, after four decades of deregulation, will see the first buses return to public control in the Liverpool city region. Taking back control of essential services such as transport is an enabler of a more productive economy, because it allows local areas to grab hold of the levers of power for themselves.
But driving growth demands we go further. It is taking far too long for businesses to get grid connections and they are being quoted prohibitively expensive sums of money if they try to bring those dates forward, as I heard on my visit to a farm near Truro. Household energy bills are the highest in Europe, and the cost of energy is impacting business and inward investment. Too many areas have seen water supplies disrupted this summer due to a lack of reservoir capacity. Our tourism industry is damaged by too many sewage spills. ‘Why?’, the Opposition say. It is a question they should ask themselves. This summer has shown us very clearly that water companies are failing to rise to the climate challenge. It cannot go on. Later in the year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over these essentials, making them work for people and places again.
Alongside that, we will empower all areas to expand the public housing stock, building on the first allocations from the social and affordable homes programme announced by the Communities Secretary last week. Bringing forward the biggest council home building programme since the post-war period is the Labour way to get the welfare bill down, as is reforming our education system, so that it balances academic and technical, and offers a path in life for all young people. Michael Gove calls this ‘bringing back stupid’, when in fact, for too many young people written off by his reforms, it is bringing back hope. Allowing mayors to shape technical pathways and provide work placements for young people, building back into colleges and schools from the needs of the regional economy, is the way to support more young people into work. So is prioritising more accessible, community-based mental health services, as we announced in the summer.
That will be a major part of our response to the forthcoming Milburn report, which will follow its publication in the autumn. For it to work, a more intentional approach to the reindustrialisation of Britain is required. We will support all parts of the country to take more public control over investment strategy, learning from the Greater Manchester model of a consolidated good growth fund drawn from their own funds, prudent loan borrowing and fragmented budgets held by government bodies. We will back local industrial strategies—a policy of the Theresa May Government I am happy to revive—by identifying priority sectors and developing the triple-helix approach to economic development by entwining business, academia and government behind the plan. This is the way we will build a pro-business culture and an innovation-led economy in all parts of the UK, finally capturing the long-term benefits of the invention that is in the DNA of our nation, backing our start-ups and scale-ups to stay in the UK where they were founded.
When I stood outside Downing Street six weeks ago, I said that Britain needs a circuit breaker after a decade of turbulence, negativity, point-scoring and divisive politics. This is what I have outlined today: a clear, coherent and credible approach to growth that can unlock a feeling of positivity and possibility in every postcode in Britain. Our job here is to make it real by taking a place-first rather than a party-first approach. It starts with reasserting basic standards for Britain—that this is a country where no one sleeps rough and no community is blighted by an illegal waste tip—and, from there, working together to build a new sense of optimism around the country. We can make this next decade better than the last. We can lift the prospects of all our people and places. We can put more power into every postcode. We can let Britain believe again. We can bring back hope. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for being here to repeat this Statement. The new Prime Minister was in place for 42 days before meeting Parliament. That is an all-time record for a new Prime Minister and I trust it will never be equalled. So, we certainly need accountability and, having ordered his troops to vote down a debate in July, I thank the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for repenting a little and granting additional time for Back-Bench questions on the Statement today. The Statement began with a tribute to Sir Keir Starmer. On hearing it, I was a little reminded of Brutus’s speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar . The Prime Minister plotted to destroy Sir Keir, not because he did not love Sir Keir but because he loved No. 10 more. Sir Keir has responded to the loyalty that he was shown and, understandably, voted with his feet. We wish him well. This Statement was grandly entitled “Direction of the Government”. So what is it? What will be different from what was done by the Starmer Government? If she answers nothing else today, can the Minister tell us three things Sir Keir was doing which will now be dropped and three things he was not doing which will now be done? After all, she is in the Cabinet; she must know. The Prime Minister in the Statement made a lot of things going wrong over 40 years. He blamed Brexit, among other things, and then announced a reduction of VAT on energy prices—ironically, impossible without Brexit. He said that he wanted to help the hospitality industry. Your Lordships may ask who has been pummelling that and crushing summer jobs over the last two years. It is this Labour Government in their disastrous tax policies and the unemployment Act. The Prime Minister used another Brexit freedom to cut VAT temporarily on pubs. They are now closing at the fastest rate ever known. We might call it “last orders with Reeves and Rayner”. But then the big new idea in the Statement to help hospitality is a tourism tax—that is a funny one. Always, always, always with the party opposite, the answer is not a spending cut but a new tax. You cannot tax your way into growth. Jim Callaghan said that in the 1970s, as the Prime Minister recalls so fondly. The Prime Minister’s friend, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, understands that equally well now. The noble Lord seems unwilling to serve under the Prime Minister’s leadership. Perhaps he is the canary in the wealth tax coal mine. Yesterday, he criticised the “tone” of the Prime Minister’s Statement, calling it the “last thing investors wanted to hear”. Business has heard the message of tax and spending loud and clear. We should beware, for this is the real danger to our country, to jobs, to mortgages and to business—tax, borrowing and spending running out of control just as they did under the Labour Government in the 1970s the Prime Minister recalls so fondly. Let us come back to the “Direction of Government”, the title of the Statement. This Government have already added £74,000 million to the tax burden in two years. Some £130,000 million is already spent every year on servicing debt: that is over £1,800 a year for every man, woman and child in the country. We have more borrowing, more nationalisation, more spending, more intervention by civil servants, more tax and more state control. Can the Minister confirm that that is the direction of the Government? It certainly sounds like the 1970s. Can she say whether the Government’s plan is to increase borrowing or reduce it? Do they plan to increase government spending to pay for all the new initiatives that the Prime Minister has announced, or to curtail spending? Will they address the burgeoning weight of welfare spending on the necks of the working man and woman, or reduce it? Come to think of it, can the Minister tell the House of one significant reduction in welfare that she is recommending to colleagues? The Prime Minister makes a lot of this new No. 10 North. Well, it is nice to have your office just down the road. To give him credit, I am told that the replica front door cost a thousand quid. I wish somebody had told someone in this House about our new front door. We are told that everyone must now beat their path to No. 10 North to get subsidies, get spending, get more civil servants and get the right to put up tax. If Cornwall wants a so-called “devolution deal”, it must go up to Manchester. Can the Minister say whether these deals will let regional mayors reduce tax? If this is about the direction of the Government, what is the Government’s strategy on taxation? Is it for the taxation burden to go up or fall under this Government? Can the Minister tell the House? Hard-working people up and down the country, who are already paying the highest peacetime tax burden in history and the highest taxation on property in Europe or the G7, deserve to know the Government’s intentions. National security is the first duty of any Government. The former Defence Secretary resigned over this Government’s failure to do enough. He is now the Chancellor. So, with that following wind in her sails, can the Minister commit to the defence funding that the Chancellor said was necessary to keep British troops safe? That is, 3% of GDP by 2030. The ultimate test for any Government is whether people feel richer, freer and more prosperous. There is agreement across the House that this can be achieved only through growth. It can be achieved only through innovation and hard work by individuals and businesses. The Prime Minister admits that the cost of doing business is already too high. Yet, in the same breath, he apparently recommits himself in the Statement to the same net-zero policies that are driving up energy costs for households and businesses. Again, which is it? It cannot be both. The direction of the Government in so many respects remains confused and unclear, but nothing would do this country more harm than the agenda of back to the high-tax, high-spending 1970s, which this Statement presages and which, in the last two days, the financial markets have ominously discerned.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, Andy Burnham is the seventh Prime Minister in the 13 years I have been a Member of this House. Under our unstable one-party government system, Prime Ministers have had an average tenure of 21 months in my time. I worked out that this is precisely the average lifespan of a domestic hamster. Of course, we wish the current Prime Minister a longer time in Downing Street than the lifespan of a hamster. We wish him well if he seeks to make changes to our country for the long-term good on social care, political reform, cutting the cost on businesses and restoring the ease of trade and travel within Europe. These Benches will work with his Ministers to meet this ambition. I wish the new Ministers who have been appointed in this House well and I thank those who left office for their service. We are also interested to see the structure, as referred to by the noble Lord, of No. 10 North. It is not north from where I live, north of the border—it is a bit more No. 10 in the middle—but I will be interested to see how the structure of government operates in reality. It is fair to analyse the words of the Labour Prime Minister. First, I agree that there is “a weariness in the heart of a nation”. I agree that there is a yearning: “For change. For national renewal”. These Benches also agree with the Prime Minister’s call for “actions not words”. Finally, we share the need for “the hope, the spirit, the belief in a better future”. These sound like Andy Burnham, but they are all actually Sir Keir Starmer’s words in his first speech as Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister’s speech on taking office, when cross-referenced with that of his predecessor, is a little like an Elgar’s variation on a theme but with a little more espressivo and emotion. Keir Starmer said that too many people no longer believe Britain would be better for their children and promised to work until they “believe again”, and Andy Burnham ended with almost exactly the same emotional destination. He said that Britain should start to “believe again” and that he wanted to “bring back hope”. Expectations are high, but as my former Scottish Liberal colleague Russell Johnston said: “You don’t change the taste of the whisky by changing the shape of the bottle”. Nor are the fundamentals and the challenges facing the Government any different because of the new Prime Minister. The tasks ahead of him are enormous, and I agree with the noble Lord that it is right that we have extra time. Indeed, tomorrow we have a debate in the House where we will be exploring further what the Government’s plans are under the new Prime Minister. Some of the Prime Minister’s statements are welcomed by these Benches, especially in the areas we have campaigned for, where hitherto action was not as rapid as we had hoped—for example, on waste dumping, championed by my noble friend Lady Sheehan in this House; on reducing the tax burden on hospitality businesses; or on securing what we hope to be real changes to the political system on donations, on clarity, on transparency and on regulation, as my noble friend Lord Pack indicated at Questions today. On the last point, we believe there need to be full cross-party talks on protecting our democratic processes—this is of vital importance—but we also need democratic reform. I would be grateful if the Leader gave an indication of what she understands the Prime Minister’s priority to be on the electoral system and democratic reform, not just on devolution. On water reform, for example, we had been told that we would have legislation around now, but in the Makerfield by-election Andy Burnham told the Guardian that he was in favour of public ownership. He recently told the FT that he is in favour of control, not nationalisation. Can the Leader offer clarification as to what we will receive when it comes to water reform, Thames Water in particular, and when we will receive it? It is urgent. Dumping is being carried out as we speak today. Andy Burnham also told the Financial Times that he wanted to address not just the cost of living but the cost of businesses, particularly energy costs. We welcome this, but there needs to be more clarity as to what he means by it. He said that there is a slight difference between his approach on growth and that of his predecessor. He agreed that the number one priority of government should be growth, but he said it should be “good growth”. I wondered what that means. Is good growth not investing in fossil fuels or being pragmatic on fossil fuels? Is it trade agreements where we ditch human rights clauses? Is good growth that we increase imports from poor standards in China? More clarity as to what good growth means would be helpful. For example, many people welcomed the cap on bus fares, and I understand why. That was the first announcement by Mr Burnham. It is paid for by a further cut of development assistance for clean travel in the poorest country in the world, so more clarity is needed. On travel, we welcome the Government’s announcement on the extension of disabled travel, championed by Tom Gordon MP in the House of Commons. We welcome the concession on digital ID. In particular, we welcome the talks on social care. Sir Ed Davey took part willingly in the talks with the Prime Minister on the need to seek cross-party consensus, and I know that the Official Opposition took part in those talks as well. Can the Leader explain a little more what we may see as a result of these talks? As Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham have both said, we need action, not words, and we need reform, not talk. On care, on electoral reform and on fiscal decentralisation, these Benches will be constructive in working with the Government, but we need a lot more information about what and when on the Government’s programme.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that I am not repeating the Statement today; I am answering questions. We agreed that earlier. I welcome him back to his position as Leader of the Opposition. Long may he stay in that role—I say that genuinely. I also thank him for his comments about Sir Keir Starmer. Many of us were very proud of the work in the Government he led. He took us into government from the worst defeat the Labour Party had had, and those two years in government are years of which we can be proud. We wish him well as he continues in his role of public service, however he chooses to do that. The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord True, asked about the differences and the similarities. There are always differences with a change of Prime Minister, but both Prime Ministers are Labour and they share the same values. Those values guide people in different ways. The heart of what they believe in is very similar, but they will discharge that in the ways that they know best from their experiences. The noble Lord, Lord True, had lots of questions on these things, as he often does. I listened with some interest when he was talking about the 1970s. Some of us do not think the 1970s were that bad. I lived through them as a teenager—
Noble Lords
Oh!
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am talking about the music. For those of us who lived through the 1970s in our teenage years, there are lots of things to be pleased with. The point the Prime Minister is making is that every action has consequences. In the 1970s we saw deindustrialisation, more centralisation and privatisation of the most basic utilities. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned the water industry. There are consequences—
Noble Lords
Oh!
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Noble Lords opposite want to heckle. There will be time to answer questions. I now have something like five minutes left to answer these questions, which I am trying to do. I would like to be able to do so, if I may. Water privatisation has had an impact on how the water industry is now run. The lack of investment in our infrastructure since those times has consequences. That is the point the Prime Minister is making about looking back. It is not to say who is to blame; it is to ask what we can learn from what we did in the past. How can we do it better and how can we avoid such mistakes again? The noble Lord, Lord True, has completely misunderstood the purpose of No. 10 North. The Prime Minister has been clear about the value of ensuring that all parts of the country think they can connect and have a role to play in the growth of this country. There is no doubt about having a central point at which decisions are taken, with the full authority of the Prime Minister, engaging with the Treasury and working together to say, “This is our focus on what we can deliver for the nation”. I have to say that the cost of the door is neither here nor there. We should perhaps look at our own House before we look at that. We in this country should be proud that we want to decentralise more and see important decisions being taken across the country. I do not have time to answer the questions on welfare reform, and I am sure there will be others on that issue, but I just say to the noble Lord how important it is. The two reviews whose results we are waiting for—the Milburn review on youth unemployment and the review of PIP undertaken by Stephen Timms—really will inform the decisions that are to be taken. We have to look at the long-term consequences of decisions that have been taken in the past. Welfare spending is predicted to remain pretty stable and the rise that has been predicted is half of that which happened under his Government. However, if we do not get a grip on this then there will be serious problems, not just in the finances but for the welfare of the nation as a whole. It is a priority on this side of the House; it is completely wrong that we have over a million young people who are in neither education nor employment. They are not working or learning. We have to address that, but just removing any benefits will not do that. We have to get them off benefits and into work so that they are not claiming benefits but paying taxes. That is a huge priority for this Government, and one that we will deliver on. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, spoke about democracy. He will have heard the Prime Minister’s comments on electoral reform. He said that he needs a mandate for that. He is not going to set up a commission without a mandate, and he referenced that in terms of the general election. He has his own view, and I think views across the House vary on this issue, but he is absolutely committed to ensuring that we preserve and protect our democracy while ensuring that everyone across the country values it. He is particularly interested in the voting system, but the money coming into politics, how we conduct our politics and the integrity of the voting system are all crucial issues. I am sorry; because of the length of time for which the noble Lords spoke, I cannot answer any more questions, but I will endeavour to do so during the Back-Bench questions, as we have longer. The noble Lord, Lord True, complained about us not having a debate before the Recess. We have a debate this Thursday as well, which came partly from the discussions we had after he complained about that. I think only six Members of his group have signed up to it, including the Front Bench. Given what he said, I thought that rather more might have wanted to do so, but we were pleased to offer extra time for questions today.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to up to 40 minutes for Back-Bench questions. Questions should be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. If Members start giving speeches, all they will do is prevent other Members asking questions. The first question will come from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, on this point about good growth, does it remain the Government’s policy that any company that is operating lawfully and fulfilling its legal responsibilities should be encouraged to grow its revenue and profits, hire people and pay its taxes, or is it the implication of the Prime Minister’s statement about “good growth” that there are companies which we would rather not do those things?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I expected a better question from the noble Lord, if I am honest. The whole purpose of growth is that it benefits the country, the company and the employees of that company. When those conditions are fulfilled, of course that is good growth. The noble Lord will see from measures coming forward how much we want to support business. Some of the things he can look at—this ties in with the welfare reform argument—are getting young people into work and working with companies and businesses to support them to take on those young people. So yes, we want good growth across the country.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, some of the coverage of the Prime Minister’s Statement has been rather dismissive of his references to, and reliance upon, his experience as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, but it seems to me that this experience is central to the Government’s mission. Can my noble friend the Leader tell us more about the Government’s ambition to place regional and local government at the heart of their agenda for delivery?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
One of the things the Prime Minister said early on, when we met in Cabinet and in other meetings we have had, is how much he learned from being the Mayor of Greater Manchester. He brings to the table now as Prime Minister his experience not just as a previous Secretary of State and a Government Minister in Westminster but of what can be achieved when power is decentralised. It is a case of ensuring that we devolve not just responsibility but the power to make decisions to those who are best placed to understand the needs of their areas, how to bring growth to their areas and how to bring the hope and optimism that noble Lords have spoken about. The Prime Minister has laid out a number of things already. On his visit to Truro last week, he talked about how we could look at having a devolved model in that part of the country, as well as about giving advice and support to other parts of the country that do not currently have elected mayors about how they may benefit from the powers that can be given to them. That is not just rhetoric; it is born out of the experience of what he was able to achieve in Manchester, working across the country with other mayors—from all parties, as he has been clear—and the difference that can make. That is high up on the agenda. Part of the role of No. 10 North is to bring that together and show how it has a real drive from the Government, with a focus very much on that policy.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Prime Minister was on a tour of the United Kingdom in recent weeks, and I welcome that. He recently visited Northern Ireland and referred to a border poll and to the Troubles Bill. However, the one thing that was not mentioned was the inter-state case being taken to the Republic of Ireland against the United Kingdom on the amnesty issue, from a Government in Dublin who have been operating a concealed amnesty since 1998. Can the Leader of the House assure us that representations will be made to the Irish Government to withdraw that outrageous case straightaway so that we can have a proper relationship and not deal with a hypocritical situation where the Republic can allow over 500 people to be murdered on our border and refuse 108 applications for people to be extradited?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I know the noble Lord, and I think he has spoken to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office about this matter. Having taken advice from my noble friend the Northern Ireland Minister, who is sitting next to me, I know that she has had conversations with the Irish Government on this and those conversations will continue. If he wants to take that up further with her then we will be happy to talk to him, but he can be assured that conversations and discussions continue on that issue.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister yesterday said that the other place had ignored for far too long the question of IPPs. Will the noble Baroness accept that this House has most certainly not ignored it? Across the whole House, there has been a concerted campaign to rid this stain from our justice system. He promised legislation “soon”. What does “soon” mean? We need to get this legislation up and running, whether it begins in this House or in the other place, as soon as we return in October.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He is right, and I have made this point; there have been a number of discussions and debates in this House on the issue. It is a difficult issue, and I know he is aware of its complications and how complex it is. I think it is understood that for people who have served significantly more than the sentences imposed on them at the time to be held so much longer is wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, said that we should end the sentences and he was quite clear-cut, and across the House there has been quite a strong view on that. When any prisoner is released, we have to deal with issues of public safety, whether that is on IPP, on early release or at the end of sentences. That is why we have invested so much additional money and support into the Probation Service; I think it was £700 million extra for recruiting new probation officers. I cannot give the noble and learned Lord an exact timetable for this, and I certainly could not promise to bring it back in October because the legislation has yet to be drafted—it was not drafted before, and we need to ensure that we get it right. Can I keep in contact with him on this? I am happy to do that and keep him informed. I am sure he will have views on how the legislation could be drafted. I will keep him and the House updated, but there will be no undue delay. This is something on which we want to move forward as quickly as we are able.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
These Benches wish the Prime Minister well and assure him of our prayers. I welcome his attendance at COP 31 in Turkey in a couple of months’ time and that he recognises the impact of climate change—he referenced the glacial collapse at the Nepal-China border with tragic loss of life and this being the hottest summer on record. How can the Government work to rebuild the cross-party consensus that there was just a few years ago about the urgent need to take action for the common good for those who share this single island planet home, both now and in the future?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I am not sure it is a question that should be necessarily addressed to the Government; perhaps addressing it to the Opposition might be more helpful. But, yes, it would be good to have a cross-party consensus on the actions that need to be taken. It is quite clear that climate change has a devastating effect across the world and has consequences in the UK that need to be addressed. The Prime Minister’s attendance at COP has been signalled early on for a good reason—he wants it to be recognised that he will be there and wants to play a full part. As the issues progress, the right reverend Prelate will see matters coming forward to this House. The Prime Minister has been very clear, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his comments about working together on these issues. This is a Prime Minister who has always had to work through consensus to get things done, and he has been clear that that is how he would rather progress things, so there will be discussions ongoing and I would hope to see greater support from the party opposite on these matters.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the strong message yesterday from the Prime Minister on hope. Hope is definitely the right message, but it can be sustained only if it is followed by real, visible, continuing delivery. It is great to see the progress on small boats, NHS waiting times and school results and even growth in the economy in an uncertain time. What are the Cabinet and the Prime Minister thinking about to sustain that growth and build the momentum that we need?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The Prime Minister is good on hope and optimism, and I like to think that the Prime Minister may follow in my footsteps. I was reflecting earlier that it was 10 years ago that I gave a lecture on the benefit of hope and optimism in politics; perhaps it had some impact—perhaps not. The whole purpose of having optimism and growth is because, if people are optimistic about the future, if they believe their lives will get better and believe their children’s lives will be better than their lives, that galvanises them into an energy that the country benefits from. Part of that is economic growth, but part of it is the democratisation issues that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to. It is people feeling they have some control over their lives and their future and can have an impact on decisions about how they live and how they work. It is not just an abstract concept. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord True, said, because, on the one hand, he said there was nothing different and then he talked about all the new initiatives that had come forth from the new Prime Minister; both cannot be true. But when the Prime Minister is talking about these initiatives, he is talking about concrete change to let people know that they can have a greater say in their lives—in how they work, how they live and where they live. That will help our economy to grow and bring the economic growth needed if we are going to deliver on these changes.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why do the Government not rule out any tax rises in the next Budget, given the disaster of the previous two Budgets when speculation about tax rises and actual tax rises destroyed jobs, drove up unemployment, closed businesses, undermined confidence and abolished hope?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am always intrigued when the party opposite talks about disastrous Budgets, because I remember one very pertinent one. But I think the noble Lord is on to something with one of the things he said, and a very interesting debate on the economy this morning on Radio 4 raised it. He talked about the speculation and the discussion before the Budget. Part of the radio debate was that it does not happen to the same extent in other countries at all; it is something very peculiar to the UK. It does have an impact and, as much as it would be very nice to be able to give him an answer and say I can rule this in and rule that out, it adds to the fuel of speculation. One of the reasons the Government have brought the Budget forward to 28 October is to try to limit that time for speculation, so that you get a complete answer. I hear calls from the party opposite, “Can you rule this in, can you rule that out, can you say this, will you commit to that?” No, but there will be a Budget, and everything will become clearer.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I actually watched the whole of the Prime Minister’s Statement in person, and the key things he identified were some of the fundamental challenges that this country faces. The key thing that I took away was the fact that he said Brexit had caused huge damage. If that is the case—and I agree with him—why on earth are the Prime Minister and his Cabinet still having those ludicrous red lines of no single market and no customs union? Joining those are the easiest way of getting growth into our economy.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is very easy to say that Brexit is the total reason for all the problems. It is part of it. In his Statement, the Prime Minister did not say that all these problems were caused by Brexit. He went back to the 1970s, back to the deindustrialisation of the country and back to some disastrous privatisations and he also referenced the poor Brexit deal that was not in the best interests of the UK. The Government do have their red lines and we are not going to go back into the European Union, but, as has been said from the Dispatch Box before and will be said again, we do want a much better relationship. We will look at decisions that can be taken and agreements that can be made to improve the position, but we are not going to rerun the argument on Brexit in the near future at all.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear next from the Cross Benches, then the Labour Benches and then the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Government have cut VAT, cut business rates and reinstated the £2 bus fare. Simultaneously, the cost of their borrowing continues to rise to increasingly frightening levels. The Prime Minister tells us that he is funding this through reprioritising spending within government, so can the Minister tell us what has been deprioritised?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The Prime Minister has looked at a number of issues and said, “Where can we do things better and do things differently?” It has been about deprioritising some issues and reprioritising others. I have not got a complete list; I will get some more information for when I come to the Dispatch Box next time on this. He has wanted to give a breathing space because, for most people at the moment, it is really hard just day to day and looking at price increases. We need to have a breathing space for people. We need to support the kind of fiscal discipline that can bring the cost of borrowing down. As we do that and say more will be available in the Budget, we need to find a way through so we take the pressure off families. It is worth noting that, in the first half of this year, this country was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and wages have increased more in the first two years of this Government than they did under a decade under the previous Government. One of the issues we have to contend with is the international situation, which is very volatile. No one could have predicted that the Strait of Hormuz would have been such a political and economic issue at this time. The Government are looking at all ways. Noble Lords will have heard the Prime Minister say that one of the reasons he appointed the former Defence Secretary to be Chancellor of the Exchequer is because he understands the competing pressures that we have to meet. As the Budget comes forward—and work is going on apace on that at the moment—it is a way to get money working better for the country and just give a breathing space to families and individuals who are trying to make ends meet at what is quite a difficult time for them.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, can the Leader say more about how we can significantly embed the work being done to create what I believe will be around 50,000 new apprenticeships by the end of this Parliament for young people aged 18 to 24 years? I know that she mentioned already a lot of work being done by the Milburn review and others across government, but how is the Prime Minister going to really bring this together to ensure that there is a road to success for all young people in this country?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question, because it gets to the nub of many of the issues. Support is already being given to young people to start in these new guaranteed jobs, and those jobs are being taken up now as we speak. If you can reshape the system so that people do not feel they are being written off, and there is money available for employers to take on apprentices, with jobs available at the end of that system, then that is what matters. We are not just waiting for the Milburn review; there is work ongoing already on some of the things that Alan Milburn has said in his conclusions, such as increasing face-to-face assessments, providing personalised work programmes and providing employment support, with £3.5 billion for employers taking on those who want to work. People have dismissed this Government too quickly in saying we have done nothing on welfare reform, but an important thing that we have done is providing a right to try work for people with disabilities. Too often, it had been assumed that people with disabilities could not work, and if they could, they had to give up any benefits and simply leave those, and if it did not work out for them, they would have to apply again. Now, there is a gap where they can apply to work, can try to work and get the opportunity to do so. When it comes to these types of issues, we need to pay for success rather than keep paying for failure, which is what happened over the last 10 years.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
The sense of positivity that the Prime Minister brought to the House in the last two days, particularly in respect of hope and growth and tax, as the Minister said, is in marked contrast to the previous regime, and it is genuinely welcome. Unfortunately, however, growth is now predicted to be negligible for this quarter and the next, and the gilts market has responded by raising our interest rates to a record higher than the aforementioned Liz Truss Budget. Can I therefore pick up the point the Minister made in reply to my noble friend Lord Redwood in respect of Budget measures? I take the point about her not wanting to rule things out. In fact, the Labour Party manifesto, which the Prime Minister has agreed to follow, specifically ruled out increases to income tax, increases in VAT and increases in corporation tax. Leaving aside the sleight of hand with national insurance, it would be possible to rule out wealth taxes and increases to capital gains tax. I ask this because I can tell the Minister that the market is frozen, and people are not making decisions. We might end up with the same mess that we had last time. I urge her Government to think carefully about whether it is possible to indicate or to tell the market that certain tax rises will be ruled out.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and thank him for his comments, which were in marked contrast to those of his leader, who did not think that we should have been saying some of these things. He makes a valid point, but as soon as you get into speculating about one area of the Budget or another—“Can you rule this out, can you rule that in?”—there is a problem. One of the reasons that the Government have brought the Budget forward is to limit that speculation period, so that things will be clear as soon as possible. If you listen to the interview that I heard this morning, one of the greatest problems that is affecting gilt and other markets is how much speculation happens in terms of asking the Government to rule things in or out. I hope to see the noble Lord here on 28 October, when there will be a debate in this House following the Budget, but I think the Government are right to bring it forward to avoid, as much as possible, the kind of speculation the noble Lord is talking about.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement, particularly on the areas of hope, optimism and devolution. As someone from Northern Ireland, I encourage the Leader of the House to talk to the Prime Minister about ways to make the institutions in Stormont more functionable and workable and to enable growth in the local economy. With that in mind, can she discuss with him the possibility of the reform of the institutions to make them equitable and fair?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
As a former leader of her party and a former Minister in Stormont, the noble Baroness knows how complex these issues have been and how hard-fought the institutions were. As a Northern Ireland Minister myself, I remember the discussions that went on, at length, to get there. It is really important that we all work together, and I think the Prime Minister has shown his commitment to Northern Ireland by visiting Northern Ireland so early as Prime Minister. We must also work together because the institutions need to be effective. Politicians may argue about it, but the people of Northern Ireland are desperate for parties to work together, and desperate to see the organisations being as effective as possible. I can assure her that I will discuss these issues with the Secretary of State and with the Prime Minister, and with my noble friend who is the Minister for Northern Ireland in this House.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is very refreshing to have a Prime Minister who looks like he wants to be Prime Minister and is enjoying it. I also welcome his very first announcement that showed his interest in sport. When he was a spad, back when I was Sports Minister, he made it quite clear that Sport England would still be consulted over the loss of playing fields. The Prime Minister is committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, yet it is being decimated in many ways, particularly on cross-community consent. Could the noble Baroness put forward any measures that would give us more confidence that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is being honoured in full, as the Prime Minister wants?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, what comes across is how important confidence was. That was voted for by the people of Northern Ireland with a sense of optimism. We have to redouble our efforts to recommit to all the values that were expressed in that, and the hope that was expressed in that. Northern Ireland only operates with cross-party consensus and agreement. When that is damaged, it is not just the institutions that are damaged but the future of Northern Ireland too. When there are protests et cetera on TV, it damages the economy of Northern Ireland as well. We may not agree on everything, but I share with the noble Baroness a commitment to ensure that the future of Northern Ireland should be as positive as possible. I hope we would both agree to work across parties and make all efforts to ensure that can happen. She is right that the Prime Minister is enjoying being Prime Minister, but he is only enjoying it because he wants to achieve something, and Northern Ireland will be part of that.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, back in 2010 I knew the Prime Minister slightly; he has probably forgotten me. He was a rather nice man, I thought, and I did offer to help him with his first election campaign for leader. He did not accept me, and the MPs who knew him did not vote for him. The question I have is this: in his Statement, the Prime Minister did not mention defence spending. This coming year, we are meant to be spending 2.75% on defence and, by 2030, we are meant to be spending 3%. Can my noble friend the Minister help with that?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am pleased to be called the noble Lord’s noble friend. He may not have stayed for the whole three and a half hours of the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday, but I certainly heard him talk about defence. He was very clear that one of the reasons that the Chancellor is the Chancellor is because he has been Defence Secretary and understands these issues. What he was clear about was that the Budget and the spending review will set out how we get to 3.5% by 2035, and also establish the path to 3%, and how that will be done. He was very clear on that. I think that there are two sides to this. As a country, we have to step up on defence. I would say to the noble Lord that we promised in our manifesto, at the last election in 2024, to get to 2.5% spending on defence in this Parliament. We have already achieved that, and I have to say that the party opposite never got to 2.5%—but circumstances and times are changing. I can assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister did talk about this in the Statement. I do not expect every Member of this House to listen to the full three and a half hours, but it might be worth the noble Lord reading Hansard , because the Prime Minister was quite clear about his commitment when he spoke yesterday in Parliament.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome our Prime Minister’s ambition to deliver good growth in every postcode, but good growth depends on good health. Our Prime Minister has already demonstrated his commitment to addressing social determinants of health in the Greater Manchester region. Can the Leader of the House confirm that reducing health inequalities and addressing wider determinants of health will be at the heart of the regional growth agenda?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
A healthy nation is always the aim of every Government. If we look back to when the National Health Service was first set up, we see that it was set up as part of the Department of Housing, because those two things are inextricably linked. I remember being at a friend’s 60th birthday party a while ago. She said the three things you needed for a long and happy life were home, good health and work—she added “someone to love”, because she was very happily married. Those are the determinants that make life worth living. If we have not got a healthy nation, we will not have a productive nation. As well as physical health, we need to do more on mental health issues, which have become a serious issue. If you look at the number of people who are not working because of mental health issues, you see that that is something that desperately needs changing across the country. So, yes, I can give my noble friend that assurance. The Health Bill was recently introduced in the other place. It will be coming to this House, where we will have the opportunity to discuss those kinds of issues.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I too wish the new Prime Minister well. The key question is whether he represents a change in style or substance. Going back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord True, what are the three new things versus the Starmer Government that the Prime Minister wants to bring in, and what are the three things that he wants to stop?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not answering questions such as that. It is more than a change of style. There is a change of style, but the same values remain. As measures come forward, both in the Budget and as we progress the programme, and then when we see a King’s Speech in due course, we will see the changes. However, totting up a change here or a difference there, as if it were some kind of balance sheet, is not the way we want to do politics.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Cross Benches next, then the Labour Benches, then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too think that words of thanks need to be paid to Sir Keir Starmer, because he did many things, in particular making our country respected outside of these islands; people took note of that, so he was in my prayer. The new Prime Minister will also be in my prayer. The question I have to ask is on the statement I made in your Lordships’ House about large majorities in Parliament. In the words of Francis Pym, large majorities do not make for good government, because one day they may turn against you—which we saw over the reform of the welfare state. Can we be assured that the new Prime Minister will have the nerve to depend on all Members of Parliament to bring necessary reform to the welfare bill?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, I am grateful that the noble and right reverend Lord is remembering both our Prime Ministers in his prayers; I am sure they will appreciate that. The noble and right reverend Lord is right to highlight the work of Prime Minister Starmer on international issues. When he became Prime Minister, I do not think it was anticipated or expected that we would see so many international issues at crisis point and needing intervention. As a result of his premiership, our country is more valued and respected on the international stage than it was previously. Even today, Prime Minister Burnham will be talking to President Macron, and they will be building on the work of the coalition of the willing, which has been so important in Ukraine. On good government and Governments taking on their own Back-Benchers, the important thing with Governments that have both large and small majorities is to work with and listen to people. Among Labour MPs, I see engagement and a real willingness to deal with issues such as welfare reform and the Budget. The key thing is always how it is done. The measures that were taken last time included providing people with disabilities with the ability to test work to see if it works for them. If it does not work, they can go back on benefits, but we try to give them support to go into work. Those kinds of measures will be warmly welcomed. Talking to MPs—last night I was with Back-Bench MPs in the Commons—I see a real willingness to engage with this issue and ensure that we do better for those people who are not in employment or education, who are not earning or learning; they cannot be written off. The determination is there. It is not a case of taking it on but of listening to and working with people to get the best possible result for those who need work, and for the country as a whole through the benefit that will bring to our economy.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement refers to the rewiring of the British state and poses the question of “who, in government, drives growth?” In that context, can my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what role is envisaged for the new Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade? There is no doubt that, if we are going to achieve the growth that we want, we will have to utilise the science and technology expertise in this country, not just to grow businesses but to ensure that they remain in the UK.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend brings his experience of science to his question. This is absolutely crucial. If we do not have innovation or new technologies, we are not going to maximise the potential for growth. It is significant that, when we look at these issues and at where the advantages and disadvantages are, particularly on AI, we see for the first time around the Cabinet table a Minister with direct responsibility for AI. He will look at where it brings benefits and at where there are problems that need to be addressed. My noble friend talked about rewiring the state, but we are bringing the talents of all departments together. That is part of the role of No. 10 North, where there will be one door for people to go through. People will not have to go to different departments; there will be better co-ordination. The No. 10 Delivery Unit here in London will also be an important part of showing how you can make a difference. Once you have got the policy, you have to make sure the policy works. Too often, across all Governments, we pass legislation, step back and wait for it to happen. If we are going to bring change, we need to know that that legislation is there for a reason, and we need to make sure we implement it and that it has effect.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, domestic abuse charities have issued warnings about the safety of victims following the early release of prisoners. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of early release to victims of domestic abuse, and what assurances can the Minister offer them?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness hits on one of the really difficult issues around this. That is why so many of the categories of people who would previously have been under early release will not be receiving early release. Whenever somebody is released, even if it is at the end of their sentence, it is important that the surviving victim understands the protection that is available to them. Whereas previously we had exclusion orders, in future there will be restricted areas. We are also putting additional money into the Probation Service for additional probation officers. This will be the biggest change we have seen in how victims are protected from offenders. There will also be a far more aggressive tagging regime; more people will be tagged. So a number of measures will come together. When the Prime Minister and Alex Norris, the Justice Secretary, were looking at this issue, at the forefront of their minds was how this will impact on those who have survived attacks and abuse. Most of us will know people who have been through that ordeal: people who have sometimes had to give evidence in court and go through all that, and sometimes have not even got to court. This is absolutely crucial. The noble Baroness will be aware of some of those measures, but there may be new measures coming forward of which she is not aware. I will keep her informed on how we can progress this.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader and I were both members of the Government when our now Prime Minister had his first go at solving the social care issue. I invite my noble friend to, first, welcome the commitment of the leader of the Liberal Democrats to take part in this, and to perhaps explore how we can ensure that, this time, the loyal Opposition party can do the same, to land the big prize that reform of social care would bring to millions of people.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
So many of us in this House are dealing, and will deal, with the care of family and friends; it is a huge strain, both financially and emotionally. The prize of getting this right is enormous, and it is very easy, when any solution is suggested, for people to say, “We cannot do that, that is too expensive”, or “This will not work”. We have to be a bit more creative, and all of us here may be the beneficiaries of this if we get it right. I hope it will be this House, and not the other House, that has to wait that long. I would invite all of those who care about this issue to put any prejudices aside and not to start making red lines over what we can and cannot discuss. We have to find a way through, and the Prime Minister, while not scarred, will remember the previous difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady May, looked at this as well, and had similar problems when she tried to find a way forward. Rather than just criticising people for something that people do not think is acceptable, there is a way of saying that this is such a crucial issue that touches the lives of nearly everybody. Around this House, we all know lots of people who are going through this at the moment. If we can find a way through this, we will give peace of mind and dignity to millions of people across the country.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
The Prime Minister said in his Statement that he will “build a pro-business culture and an innovation-led economy”. to drive growth and job creation. That is fantastic news, and I congratulate the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister on those words. Does this mean that HMG will now listen to every single business group in this country, and heed their overwhelming advice to repeal those parts of the Employment Rights Act that are currently undermining jobs?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I was disappointed when the party opposite set its face against the Employment Rights Act in the way that it did. It is important, and most employers which are good employers find the benefits from it in both their balance sheets and their productivity. I have not heard the Prime Minister talk about repealing anything in the Employment Rights Act, but we want to work with employers on how we implement it and ensure that they can get the best from their workforce. One of the things that we are doing is providing the grants and support we were talking about to take on young people and people with disabilities. Unless we look at the whole nation for employment, employers are losing out, and the country is losing out as well.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement, and he faces a daunting task in reversing the Conservative legacy. This includes 25.3 million people living below the minimum living standard, declining life expectancy, potholed roads in every street, 7.6 million on NHS waiting lists in England alone, social care in disarray, universities in crisis, the poorest 20% paying a higher proportion of their income in direct and indirect taxes than the richest 20%, and the UK languishing at or near the bottom of the G7 and the OECD league of investment in productive assets. I am not sure there is enough paper in this place, but will the Leader consider producing a list of Conservative failures?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will do my best in the time available, but I might not be able to repeat them all. One thing that is important to note is that decisions, and consequences of actions taken, do not happen in a vacuum. I come back to the example I gave earlier: the failure of some of the privatisations, water being an example, where we then failed to invest in the water companies. We are paying for the consequences, from dirty rivers and water supplies being cut off. At the end of the day, we have to look back and see what went wrong, and why some of those things had such a disastrous effect on the lives of people in this country. As a Government, we can do better. It is important to be optimistic and to offer hope, but also to offer concrete change that really makes a difference; not just providing economic growth, but a better quality of life for every citizen of this country, and—to coin a phrase—growth in every postcode.
← Previous
Armed Forces Bill
Next →
Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5396528.