Ben Spencer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is difficult not to take this vindictive policy of taxing education personally. That is not just because, like many parents in Surrey, we as a family have chosen independent education for our children, or because as a Conservative I support all our schools and I want all our children to have the best start in life; it is because lots of different data points show that the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency will be one of the most heavily punished areas as a result of this policy. It is interesting to hear the Minister talk about the estimated numbers of children who will move out of the independent sector and into the state sector. I speak to the many independent schools in my constituency pretty much all year round. They have met me, and they tell me that they are desperately concerned about this policy. They have estimated that about 5% to 10% of children will need to move out. That is probably 500 to 1,000 children in my constituency, many of whom have already been disrupted by covid. Many of them are studying for their exams, have friendships groups that will be disrupted, and will potentially be moving to schools that will be unable to provide the same courses or exam specifications that they are currently receiving. I hear from state schools that already face lots of pressure on places. As the Minister will have heard in my earlier intervention about admissions and the empty spaces that we have in years nine to 11, and the intake for the next academic year there is no space—we have lots of pressures. This policy will cause long-lasting damage to many children. I hope it will not, but in reality it will. It is clear, given the numbers and the full-throated support on the Government Benches, that this policy is going ahead and we will not be able to stop it. But will the Government, at very least, support our new clause 8? If they are so proud of this policy, which they clearly are, and so happy to defend what they see as the limited impact on young people, why are they afraid of a proper analysis? I would ask them please to think again, but I would be at risk of misleading the House, because clearly they never thought in the first place.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  When the hon. Member considers how much money will be raised by the family farm tax, how many hundredths of a percent is it against total annual Government spending?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I usually would, but unfortunately that would impact on other Members who wish to speak. I apologise. What is fundamental to me, given my interest in capacity, is that we have not considered how much human decision making is driven by altruistic intentions. “I did it for my children” is rightly a primary motivation in many settings, but as a society are we comfortable with a decision to seek a medically assisted death so as not to be a burden on one’s family or to save them money? This will not impact on capacity. We cannot pretend that capacity assessments will be a shield for these moral concerns. Where is the line, if there is one, between indirect coercion and the natural human responses in a stressed family unit looking after a sick loved one? I believe that we could introduce legislation on assisted dying that has fully reviewed and addressed these issues, but parliamentarians must deal with what we have in front of us today. Proponents on both sides of the debate frame this vote on Second Reading as a vote on the principle of assisted dying, but in reality it is a vote on implementation as put forward in this Bill. As a former mental health doctor, I am proud that I was there for the most vulnerable. Today, I think about those without a voice in this debate or in the TV studios. I think about the elderly woman in the care home with mild cognitive impairment, who retains capacity but is nevertheless vulnerable to coercion and undue influence, or the sick mother whose child may lose their job or their relationship due to the burden of caring responsibilities. The Bill would not protect them. It risks placing implicit pressure on people already vulnerable at a time of life when they should receive our unwavering care and support. We should and must vote it down.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Prior to my election to Parliament, as a consultant psychiatrist with a PhD in decision-making capacity, I would have met both criteria to be a medical expert assessor under clause 9(3)(b), so I have a particular perspective as someone who, in different circumstances, might have been called upon to make these assessments. I strongly believe that we should respect and support the right to bodily autonomy for people with full decision-making capacity, subject to the caveat that it does not cause serious harm to others. I argued for this when I was on the working group of the independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983 and on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the Mental Health Bill, which, among other things, aims to prevent people from coming to harm when suffering from severe mental illness. These reforms were debated in the House of Lords this week, and they demonstrate how Parliament should legislate in complex areas that balance individual autonomy and risk. In contrast, as a private Member’s Bill, there is limited ability for scrutinising this Bill’s provisions. It has had no independent review, no pre-legislative scrutiny and no impact assessments. Many MPs support the principle of assisted dying yet have concerns about implementation, resource implications and safeguarding. That is why I, along with colleagues on both sides of the House, tabled a reasoned amendment calling for an independent review and consultation before a vote in Parliament, to provide a third way through. I thank the Members who supported the amendment, particularly the hon. Members for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), for their work and their extensive and careful consideration. Although the general debate on assisted dying may focus largely on the principles, legislation must address the limits to and the safeguards on consent. Should people be able to agree to a medically assisted death? If so, what restrictions, if any, should there be on people who can make this decision—age, capacity, terminal illness, intolerable suffering? And then, what safeguards are there to uphold these limits and to prevent abuse—assessments by two doctors, judicial scrutiny? Given that the main argument I see in favour of assisted dying is the exercise of personal autonomy, I believe the most substantive issues we need to wrestle with are the limits that we set. Why is this Bill limited to the terminally ill and not those who are suffering without that being terminal? What even comes within the scope of terminal illness? With the refusal of treatment and medication, conditions such as type 1 diabetes and HIV can be designated as terminal, despite being fully treatable. There are many questions, but in this Bill the most prominent problem is that, in a legal context, if the availability of assisted dying is limited only to those who are terminally ill, it is discriminatory either to those with or without terminal illness. Either their right to autonomy is greater than others’, or the value of their life is worth less. We must also ask whether autonomy can be exercised where there is no choice. If good palliative care is simply not available, can we really rely on this as a true and free decision? I would argue that we cannot, and that this Bill does not safeguard against coercion through state neglect.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Online Safety: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for securing this debate. She spoke powerfully and knowledgeably on a wide range of issues, particularly on the children’s codes, and her requests for reform and improvements. There were many contributions from hon. Members in this important debate, but one that really struck me, and which I would like to draw particular attention to, was the contribution from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). When hon. Members speak in debates, there are few times when all Members listen. She spoke rightly and powerfully about the awful statistics—I say “statistics”, but I really mean the number of horrendous acts of child sexual abuse that have been and are taking place, and the impact that that will have on those children and, indeed, all people who are exposed to it. All of us, as parliamentarians, need to be very mindful of that. Each and every one is an individual tragedy. Protecting children from harmful or illegal content is something that all Members are committed to, and it is right that we work together to protect children. I welcome the Online Safety Act brought in by the last Conservative Government. That groundbreaking legislation had the protection of children at its heart, introducing effective, pragmatic laws and restrictions to combat some of the horrors we have heard about. It was great to have several of the architects of the Online Safety Act taking part in the debate and asking pertinent questions to the Minister, whose job it is to ensure that this piece of legislation works for us, our children and our families. As a responsible Opposition, it is now our job to pose the questions and to support the Government in delivering protections for our children. I will make my speech in that spirit, particularly with a series of questions that I have for the Minister about the Act’s implementation. I commend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology for meeting bereaved parents who have lost children to harmful online content, and for publishing the draft statement of strategic priorities for online safety. I pay tribute to those in the Gallery whose families have been tragically affected by online harms. The Secretary of State has stated that the Government will implement safety by design to stop more harm occurring in the first place. We support the Government’s aspiration to deliver safe online experiences for all users, as we did in the previous Government. It is important that we consider whether the expectation should fall on users to take precautionary steps to avoid severely harmful content, and particularly those who are most vulnerable. But when the Government talk of safety by design, it is crucial that they place the onus on social media companies to ensure the safety of their users. Given the role that algorithms play in pushing themed content to users, what plans do the Government have to empower users to exercise greater personal control over the algorithms? The Government outlined the need to ensure that there are no safe havens online for illegal content and activity. Although we wholeheartedly support that aim, to what extent will removing the ease of mainstream access push such content further out of sight and possible regulation? We support the Government’s desire to improve transparency and accountability across the sector, but while there is a desire to increase algorithmic transparency, how do the Government intend to improve regulatory co-ordination in the pursuit of achieving that? In addition, the inculcation of a culture of candour via the transparency reporting regime will be challenging. How will that be facilitated? In January 2024, Instagram and Facebook announced that they would block under-18s from seeing harmful content relating to eating disorders, self-harm and suicide, but it has been highlighted that the content is so prevalent that it can still be found easily online. What steps do the Government intend to take to ensure that the existing legislation is enforced? We must ensure that children are protected from material that is not age-appropriate, such as pornography. That is why the last Government tightened up age restrictions by requiring social media companies to enforce age limits consistently and to protect their child users. It is right that services must assess any risk to children from using their platforms and set appropriate age restrictions, ensuring that child users have age-appropriate experiences and are shielded from harmful content. Again, this should be followed closely to ensure that platforms—or indeed, children—are not finding ways around restrictions. Currently, age checks are not strong across all platforms. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government plan to do that. Restrictions introduced by the last Government are a good start but, as was noted in the debate, as technology changes, we must keep up. The Government talk of ensuring that age assurance technology to protect children is being effectively deployed. How do they intend to ensure that that happens and to ensure that companies are investing in the most up-to-date technology to facilitate it? Will the Government proactively stress-test that capability? We must stand against the harms that come our children’s way. We must build on the success of the previous Conservative Government by ensuring that all restrictions and laws work. We must embrace technology and understand that the internet and social media, in general, are a force for good, embedded in our daily lives, while also understanding that checks and balances are essential if we are to ensure a safe online environment for all users.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. As was clear from his speech and his diligent, razor-sharp focus on targeting the delivery of gigabit broadband in different parts of his constituency, he is a true community champion. His constituents are lucky to have him. That is a theme of the debate. All Members have spoken about individual parts of their constituency where broadband is a challenge. That goes to show how important our digital backbone is in the United Kingdom. I will resist the temptation to mention parts of my constituency, such as Queen’s Road or Ellesmere Road in Weybridge, where we have done work to deliver gigabit broadband. The debate demonstrates how important the issue is. It is one that inevitably and invariably gets the attention of Members of Parliament, so that they advocate for their constituents and try to deliver it. Project Gigabit demonstrates simply that where there is a will, there is a way. Back in 2019, 7% of properties had what is defined as “gigabit access” or 1 gigabit per second. In April 2024—the last official stats we have—that had reached 81%. In fact, it is believed that the 85% target, due to be reached in ’25, has already been reached. That is a huge roll-out of gigabit broadband to households over the past five years of a Conservative Government. There are of course people who do not have gigabit broadband, and it is critical that we work to ensure that they can have that vital accessibility. That is absolutely not just about being able to watch this debate in HD—to listen to my dulcet tones and to see the spots on my face; it is about industry and connectivity, and the events of covid showed just how important that is. Look at the £5 billion investment allocated to the project; some data shows that that is probably a £60 billion contribution to the UK economy. How do we go about rolling out the delivery of gigabit broadband across the country? We as Conservatives know that the way to do it is to get industry involved and work with it. That is why 80% of the gigabit broadband target is linked to industry bringing it through, although we recognised that to get to the further 20% of roll-out, we needed to bring in subsidy and break down barriers. That is where we move from the initial phase of Project Gigabit, which was to do with industry delivering, to now, with the public subsidy we have seen over the past few years. A great concern, however, is future inequalities, in particular in delivery to rural areas versus urban areas. The great concern is that over the next six months to a year, there will be a reallocation of priority away from rural areas to urban areas.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister chunters from his seat, but in his speech, please can he assuage that concern? The way to do so is to provide transparent data on the prioritisation of funding and the roll-out.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Storm Bert · Hansard source

  More

  We have a flood alert in Runnymede and Weybridge at the moment, but it takes a few days for the water to make its way down to us, so we do not know the full impact of Storm Bert. We hope that there will not be a repeat of what happened with Storm Henk earlier this year, when constituents were passed from pillar to post due to the myriad statutory responders during a flood emergency. What will the floods resilience taskforce do to fix that, and will the Secretary of State support my campaign for an individual point of contact and co-ordination? We need a flood control centre in Runnymede and Weybridge, and in all our constituencies, to support our residents in a flood emergency.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Condition of Local Roads · Hansard source

  More

  People living near the concrete sections of the M25 in my constituency are besieged by motorway noise. In fact, some schools and homes cannot open windows, such is the noise nuisance. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is an absolute disgrace, and will she support my campaign to scrap the concrete sections of the M25 motorway?

• 21 Nov 2024 · G20 and COP29 Summits · Hansard source

  More

  I note the Prime Minister’s comments on COP. He will know, of course, that the agricultural industry is one of the most difficult areas to decarbonise; that will require substantial investment. Will his family farms tax help or hinder that?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Shared Rural Network · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the recent update on the expansion of 4G to rural areas under the shared rural network project, particularly for businesses and farmers who are under such pressure at the moment, with the recent Treasury announcements. Which Secretary of State should we thank for the planning approval and funding of this vital infrastructure project?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Draft Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to her place; it is great to be able to serve opposite her as shadow Minister of State. I am sure that colleagues across the House welcome the fact that the Online Safety Act is on the statute book and will want to make sure that its provisions are fit for purpose and can be utilised as soon as possible. This tidying-up order is necessary to resolve the particular lacuna of law that has been discovered with regard to data disclosure. That in itself is uncontroversial. Clearly, there are questions to be asked in respect of ensuring that any data sharing is proportionate and that the confidentiality of data held by businesses is not infringed in fulfilment of the duty to share data with the Secretary of State. What confidence does the Minister have that businesses have an adequate redress mechanism to ensure that any data sharing that occurs under this measure is proportionate and meets the legal criteria, as she set out?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. I am sure that ensuring that every child has access to a great education is a priority for all across the House, and I welcomed the announcement on extra funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities in the Budget. In the Chancellor’s speech, she announced a £2.3 billion increase in core spending and £1 billion for SEN. However, the Budget document states that those sums are both from the same pot, in which case that spending was announced twice. Which is correct?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Cancer Strategy for England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this important debate on what is clearly a difficult subject, given how much cancer affects people: as several hon. Members have said, it affects all of us, not just those who are directly affected. I listened carefully to the powerful speeches that he and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) made about the direct impact that they have experienced. I pay tribute to all the people who work in our NHS, the charity sector, the research sector and all parts of our community that are active in prevention and in supporting, treating and helping people through the journey with cancer. My speech cannot cover every cancer in the limited time I have, but I will focus on the major cancers, so to speak, in terms of prevalence and mortality rates. That is not to diminish the importance of the range of cancers: it is critical that we focus on rare cancers as well as the major ones. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham again for his speech and for sharing his personal experience. He did not mention the fact that he has raised more than £800,000 for cancer charities in his work following his diagnosis. It is important that we pay tribute to him for bringing forward this debate. I was deeply concerned by the story told by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) about the impact on her constituent of the cessation of their treatment as a result of financial measures. I hope that the Minister can meet her or take up the case; I would be interested to hear how that decision was taken. I hope that the family and the individual affected are doing okay with their treatment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) made important points, to which I will return later, about childhood and teenage cancer. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), my constituency neighbour, raised the impact on his constituents in terms of seeking direct cancer care. As he knows, both of our constituencies are served by Ashford for broader cancer support. I would welcome the chance to meet him to discuss how we can help our constituents, particularly with journey times to access cancer care locally. It is important to focus on data, so I will refer to data from the NHS and from Cancer Research UK. I have a series of questions for the Minister; I know that a lot may not be in his portfolio, but if he cannot answer today I will be grateful for a written response. Fundamentally, the things that the state can do about cancer strategies break down into prevention, diagnosis, care and treatment, and research. All the major cancers have modifiable risk factors. Of the 44,000 bowel cancer cases a year, 54% are deemed to be preventable, with 11% linked to obesity, 28% linked to diet and fibre, 13% linked to processed meat and 5% linked to physical activity. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK: of the 56,800 cases a year, about 8% are believed to be linked to or caused by obesity. Lung cancer is the third most common cancer: of the approximately 50,000 cases a year, about 80% are preventable and 72% are linked directly to smoking. Overall, tobacco is the largest preventable cause of cancer. Some 50,000 cancer cases per year are attributable to smoking. In the last Parliament, we introduced the Tobacco and Vapes Bill because we recognised the importance of reducing smoking. Can the Minister tell me when his Government plan to reintroduce that Bill, so that we can start to see its health benefits? Obesity is the UK’s second biggest cause of cancer, after smoking. It is believed to cause about one in 20 cases: 20,000 cases of cancer per year are attributable to obesity. We brought forward an obesity strategy. Will the Minister review it and bring forward an obesity strategy in this Parliament? On screening and treatment, while cancer outcomes continue to improve in comparison with the OECD, it is worth looking at the data in the Darzi report. One of the most interesting slides shows that over the past 14 years, we have improved relative to the gradient of cancer outcomes, but we started at a very low point. There are lots of questions to be asked about why we started at such a low point back in 2004. The NHS is still recovering from the disruption to cancer care caused by the covid pandemic, but thanks to the hard work of NHS staff, waits of more than 62 days declined between September 2022 and August 2024. Obviously there is still more work to be done. Community diagnostic centres and surgical hubs made a difference. They were backed by a £2.3 billion investment, the largest cash investment in MRI and CT scanning in the history of the NHS; those scans, tests and checks are now being delivered in 170 CDC sites. [ Official Report, 11 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 6WC.] (Correction) As the independent Health Foundation recently pointed out, surgical hubs have helped to build capacity and reduce waiting lists over the past few years. Although it was not mentioned in Lord Darzi’s report on NHS performance, I welcome the Government’s intention to expand surgical hubs. Will the Minister provide more details on how many new surgical hubs will be established? What plans have the Government to expand the CDC network further? There is clearly more work to be done to improve cancer waiting times and outcomes. The major conditions strategy developed under the last Government was designed to provide more impetus for improving cancer outcomes, alongside those for other major conditions. Developing the strategy involved significant consultation and engagement with cancer charities and professional bodies. Since the election, the Government have decided to scrap the strategy. Can the Minister explain why he made that decision? Given the time that cancer charities and organisations have put in, can the Minister explain how their contributions will be used to develop the 10-year plan for the NHS? Can he explain why, in the NHS consultation that is now being run, there are no cancer-specific questions? We heard earlier that eight people in 10 want a cancer strategy. Will he respond if similar results emerge from the consultation? The Government scrapped the children and young people cancer taskforce, and we have yet to hear an alternative approach to improve of outcomes in that area. Will the Minister provide clarity on the Government’s plans on children’s cancers and the reasons why they discontinued the children and young people cancer taskforce? Research is most relevant to some of the rarer cancers that are often not talked about. We very much welcome the protection of Government investment in R&D, with £20 billion allocated to 2025-26 and core research spending protected. That includes a £2 billion uplift for the National Institute for Health and Care Research. I should mention that my doctoral research fellowship was funded by the NIHR, although it was mental health research rather than cancer research. It is great that we support that fantastic institution. I am pleased that the Government have kept the current rate of research and development tax relief. However, the Minister will know that a lot of support and research is provided by or directly commissioned from charities, which are a critical part of the cancer care and treatment infrastructure. My understanding is that in yesterday’s Budget, public services were protected from the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions. Can the Minister explain what the impact of national insurance employer contributions will be on charities that provide care and treatment in this area? What conversations has he had with those charities, and what concerns have they raised with him? In the Darzi report and elsewhere, there is rightly a focus on the diagnostic pathway and on the time it takes to diagnose and treat someone following a query as to whether someone has cancer. When does the Minister expect the huge £22 billion injection in the NHS to produce outcomes? Or does he agree with the comments in Lord Darzi’s report that the NHS does not necessarily need more money for outcomes? It has had a lot of money from the former Conservative Government over the past few years. Does the Minister think that reform is the best way to ensure improvement?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder if you could give me some advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I fear that the Chancellor may have inadvertently failed to declare an interest. She spoke a great deal about working people during her speech. Is she a working person, and should she declare that? Or maybe she isn’t.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is with sadness that I rise to speak in this debate on the Budget of broken promises. During the election campaign, I heard from many constituents about how they felt regarding their disillusionment with our political system. They feel that Westminster seems to talk only about itself, does not represent them and at times treats them like fools. This Budget damages our democracy in the contempt with which it treats our voters. For the past few months, my constituents have been hearing from the Government that everything is going to be awful and this is going to be a punishment Budget, and they have been awaiting it with trepidation. They have heard that when the Labour party came into power, it discovered things it was not expecting, so it had to announce winter fuel payment cuts—despite the fact that it had been talking about doing so in this place for some time. Labour has said that it has to make difficult decisions but that it will stick to all its promises, but—hey!—it turns out that it can pull out various loopholes that it had carefully weaved into its manifesto. That is one of the reasons why over the past few weeks we have seen this incredible debate about what a “working person” is, which so far has been pure and utter sophistry. It appears that that is what so much of this Budget debate turns on, so what is a working person? Certainly, I would say I am a working person; people here are working people, for the most part. The majority of my constituents are working people, or had been until they started claiming a pension, and that needs to be respected. Since the Chancellor said that there would be no tax rises on working people, this question has led to a great degree of confusion as we go through the Budget. Is a business owner, or someone who works as a tradesman, not a working person? Ironically, Labour says it wants to fix the foundations of the country, but I wonder where it is going to get the tradespeople to do so. How about people who save for their future? Are they not working people? How about our pensioners? Have they not been working people? How about people who use the bus? Are they not working people? Thankfully, today I got an email from the TUC, which helped clarify who working people are. It pointed out that the TUC are the ones who represent working people. I think our constituents all know that unless they are a trade union member or someone who is dependent on the state, the Labour party does not think they are a working person, and it is coming for them. [ Interruption. ] Well, look at the tax rises. When Government Members start digesting the Budget—when they look at the impact of an extremely low growth rate over the next few years, the impact on farmers, who will struggle to pass on their farms, and the impact on small businesses, which we depend on for growth, investment and prosperity —they will regret what has been said today. I was sad that the south-east and Surrey were not really mentioned. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members laugh, but they would do well to consider that Surrey is the biggest net contributor to the Treasury outside London. The Chancellor would do well to listen to Surrey MPs about the investment that we need in local infrastructure so that we can continue to provide money to the economy for the ambitions of us all. In my constituency, that means confirmation of support for the Weybridge health centre rebuild, fixing our level crossings and motorways, and rebuilding the Magna Carta school. The Government had an opportunity with this Budget, and they have missed it. They have chosen duplicity over delivery, politics over pragmatism and sophistry over service.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  In the absence of a plan, it is always a good idea to do a review. My constituents are being failed by our local sewage infrastructure—Thames Water is a total and utter disgrace. However, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, because I think I have found an unlikely ally. The Labour Government will force through building on the green belt in my constituency, with a whole host of new houses—a situation exacerbated by the failure of the Liberal Democrat administration in Elmbridge to deliver a local plan. Given the time it will take the commission to report back, and given that these new houses will require more sewerage, does the Secretary of State agree that we should pause and think again about the house building targets until the review has been completed?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Patient Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has repeatedly stressed the importance of preventing people from taking up smoking, as one of his priorities to improve the nation’s health, reduce waiting lists and lessen demand on the NHS, and we agree. The Government like to talk about the record of their first 100 days in office but, according to data from Action on Smoking and Health, 280 children under the age of 16 take up smoking in England each day. That is 28,000 children in England during the Secretary of State’s first 100 days. Why has he not yet reintroduced our Tobacco and Vapes Bill? How many children need to take up smoking before he makes this a priority?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. The Liberal Democrats clearly have a very formed view of the reforms that they want, so what number of Lords would be in the elected upper Chamber? [ Interruption. ]

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is generous in giving way. There is a fertile debate on this side of the House, and the Government should reflect on the fact that Opposition Members tend to think independently. Does he not think that the idea that a step-by-step process will work at all is for the birds?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start my contribution today by thanking our colleagues in the House of Lords for their work and public service in their vital role scrutinising and editing the legislation that we put together in this place. Prior to my first election in 2019, I did not know that much in depth and detail about the workings of the House of Lords and its value to our parliamentary system. In the past five years, I have seen a House of Lords that has been effective, using the expertise that it draws upon, in holding up legislation and ensuring that it works and that we make good decisions, leading to good laws for our country going forward. It is important to recognise the contribution that Members of the House of Lords make and continue to make, and we thank them for that. It is important that we have a strong second Chamber, but that does not mean there is no need for reform. I very much support reform of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made comments in his speech about unaccountability; in a sense, the fact that most Lords are appointed as life peers because of their expertise or the work they have done means that their accountability is what got them there in the first place, and the fact that they are unaccountable gives them a degree of freedom in ensuring that we make the best laws. I support the Government’s Bill to remove the 92 hereditary peers, all of whom are men and retain a role in legislating because of their birth. This is very much not a criticism of those peers. I have had the pleasure of working with many, and with one, Viscount Craigavon, particularly closely. Over the years he has done incredible work with the all-party parliamentary groups for Sweden and for Finland, of which I have been chair or vice-chair. Although I support the Bill, it takes a ham-fisted approach to reform. If it is going to be done, do it properly. The idea that it is going to stay narrow and that this will be a quick fix to move things forward is, given the scope and depth of the debate, for fantasists. On further reform, I absolutely do not support an elected upper Chamber, which I think would cause all sorts of problems, not least in terms of parliamentary supremacy. The life appointments add real value, as seen in the current and previous Parliament. There are people like Sir Patrick Vallance, who is now a Labour Minister and was previously chief scientific adviser. He is known for his work on covid and I look forward to seeing his work in the other place. Lord Harrington was brought in as a Minister in response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis, and he responded to the difficult challenges in that respect and helped to provide support. Lord Cameron was brought in as Foreign Secretary—my, do we not wish we had Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary now? Most recently, the Labour Government brought in Baroness Poppy Gustafsson as an investment Minister, given their lack of business expertise and experience on the Front Bench. I thank the Baroness for helping to support the Labour Government with regard to the needs of business. We should consider the numbers in the House of Lords. We should look at how much people attend and participate. We should look at the funding. We should look at the retirement age, at the composition and at whether there should be a role for religious representation. As is set out in the reasoned amendment, which I shall support, measures to modernise and reform the House of Lords should be taken now. This is a missed opportunity, but I hope it will not turn out to have been, because once we have passed Second Reading and the Bill goes to Committee, we are going to see amendments tabled by, interestingly, Opposition Members, by the sounds of it, that will uphold the Government’s manifesto commitment, because they are being so timid in what they are trying to achieve. Rather than prioritising their need to be seen to be doing something, the Government need to start learning to do things right.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Old Oak Common Station Construction: South-west Travel Disruption · Hansard source

  More

  Traffic delays at level crossings in Egham, Addlestone and Chertsey are punishing my constituents, and engineering works and diversion routes just make that worse. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can mitigate and improve our level crossings, especially during these engineering works?