#
My Lords, as set out on Today’s List, Back-Bench speeches in this debate should be limited to four minutes. I am sure I speak on behalf of Members across the House when I say that I would be grateful if Members could stick to this advisory time to ensure that the Minister has adequate time to respond to the points raised.
#
My Lords, I want to start this debate by paying tribute to Sir Keir Starmer for his immense services to the country. He took Labour to a landslide general election victory. He inherited a country reeling from 14 years of Conservative rule resulting in a weak economy, failing public services and shockingly run-down defences. Under his stewardship the economy grew, public services improved, violent crime reduced and our international reputation has been enhanced, not least because of his stalwart support for Ukraine.
No one can be in doubt that this country faces considerable challenges. As the Prime Minister told the Commons on Tuesday:
“Things are not working as they should. Life is too expensive and too hard for too many ”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/9/26; col. 26.]
The Prime Minister believes that much of this malaise has been caused by a series of damaging wrong turns that centralised political power and surrendered public control over vital utilities, leaving citizens vulnerable to inflated cost, which was then compounded by Brexit.
The noble Lord, Lord True, said in his eloquent tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, that we do not shout at each other in this Chamber. That is right, but I want to comment on a remark he made yesterday on the Statement when he accused this Government of going back to the 1970s. I gently point out to him that this country was much more equal in the 1970s. The last 40 or so years have seen us lose that equality, with 10% prospering but 90% falling behind or stagnating. Many of the places and people most affected have not recovered from deindustrialisation.
The Government are ambitious to improve the standard of living, sort out social care and housing, boost vocational education, meet our NATO defence commitments and make the UK’s voice count. The Prime Minister is clear that devolution is the key to progress and prosperity, with the setting up of No. 10 North at the heart of the growth agenda. As a Brummie, I say that we have now redefined ourselves as being part of the north.
The immediate measures taken by the Government are important both in themselves and as a visible sign of intent for the longer term. They include: capping bus fares at £2 in England, which has been a huge boost to many, many people; cutting VAT on electricity bills; reducing tax on pubs; investing to get rough sleepers off the street; funding to support the delivery in the first instance of more than 70,000 social homes; and action on the mountains of illegally dumped waste. The Prime Minister is using government to make a difference for people who feel hard pressed, solving problems that have been long neglected or where public authorities have been too slow, unwilling or seemingly powerless to act.
The economy is clearly critical to this. Despite doom-laden predictions, the UK economy had GDP growth of 0.6% in the first quarter, followed by 0.4% in the second quarter. In fact, the UK is currently the fastest-growing G7 economy. Borrowing this fiscal year is running £6 billion below last year and, as the ONS has noted, it was the 12th lowest April to July period since 1993.
The noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned borrowing yesterday. We hear a lot from the Conservatives about borrowing, and they certainly know a thing or two about it: the last Conservative Government borrowed more than the G7 average in every single one of their 14 years in Government. This year, this Government are borrowing less. I have to say that the appointment of Andrew Griffith, the co-author of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, as shadow Chancellor makes one question the seriousness of the claim that the party opposite has to economic competence.
In relation to debt, recent analysis by Morgan Stanley compared its estimate of the UK’s 96% general debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of this year with that of 120% for China, 120% for France and 125% for the US, with Japan and Italy higher still. Morgan Stanley commented two weeks ago that the UK stands out among the major economies in trying to do something about rising debt.
Clearly, growing the economy becomes crucial to the future. There are three points that I will put to my noble friend that I think are important to growing the economy. The first is tackling the high costs of and long timescale for building essential infrastructure in this country. The Centre for British Progress has reported that British public investment is on a par with OECD averages but we get less back from it. The government response to the Fingleton review on nuclear regulation put it very well:
“Our regulatory, environmental and planning processes have become too fragmented, too cautious and too slow, driving up costs”.
The recently enacted Planning and Infrastructure Act will deal with some of the blockages, and I am delighted that elected mayors are going to be given powers to take over large-scale planning applications. I urge the Government to go further and extend that to energy infrastructure projects, and to speedily legislate for Fingleton’s recommendations.
A second key factor in growing the economy is sticking to our commitment to net zero in the face of ever-worsening climate change. The Conservatives’ retreat from their commitments on net zero—this was the party that actually legislated for net zero—is no reason why we as a Government should resile from those targets; nor will obsessing about marginal increases in output from the rapidly declining North Sea oil and gas reserves have any impact whatever on energy prices. I readily acknowledge that energy prices are too high both for industry and domestically, but I hope the Government will be brave on this and fundamentally reform our flawed energy pricing system, in which volatile gas prices can set the cost of homegrown renewable energy. So, no retreat on net zero—it has huge potential for growth. CBI analysis recently estimated it to be a £105 billion sector, generating highly skilled jobs across every part of the UK.
A third factor in growth, for me, is getting young people into work. Alan Milburn’s seminal review identified nearly 1 million 16 to 24 year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, and of course behind those statistics lie stagnated aspirations and hopelessness. Over the past decade, the proportion who say they are NEET due to a work-limiting health condition has increased by 70%. Once health-related inactivity takes hold, moving those people into employment becomes incredibly challenging.
In contrast to the Conservatives’ brutal approach to welfare, I believe we need a welfare system to protect those who cannot work and provide proper financial security for people with severe or enduring disabilities. But for young people who could participate with the right support, our welfare system should be a springboard to employment. That is why the Government’s emphasis on vocational education, with links into local industry, is so important, and that was a subject of an excellent debate earlier today led by my noble friend Lady Morgan.
I am convinced that negative attitudes towards vocational education have bedevilled this country over decades, leading to an FE sector deprived of resources, where staff are underpaid compared with schoolteachers, and where a VAT burden is unfairly placed upon them—I hope my noble friend may have some good news in relation to that. There is no question in my mind that technical excellence needs to be recognised as being as valid as academic excellence. Encouraging and allowing young people to follow a skills route at 14 opens the gateway to huge opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke eloquently in the earlier debate about the importance of technical education.
Of all the social issues we face, for me the provision of adult social care is the most pressing. Its current shortcomings impact badly on the NHS, as can be seen from the spectacle of corridor care, delayed discharges and too many people admitted into hospital. I also echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said in her July speech to the LGA when she argued that previous attempts at reform have failed because they have either tinkered with parts of the system or tried to push through changes without securing public consent for the tough choices involved, and there will be tough choices.
The NHS needs to change as well. One reason—this comes from my personal experience with in-laws and my mother—that so many people are inappropriately in hospital is that, in too many cases, the NHS itself puts up barriers to treatment at home or in care homes, which forces people into A&E. We need the NHS to really start to shift that proposition.
On the global stage, the Prime Minister is making the UK’s voice count. His decision to help Ukraine build long-range missiles is both encouraging and a sign of the UK’s unwavering support for that country.
The global picture is one of increasing instability, as Mark Carney, the Canadian Premier, pointed out in his Davos speech last year. He said that
“there is a rupture in the world order … we live in an era of great power rivalry”,
with the rules-based order fading. In calling for co-operation among middle powers, Carney said that middle powers are not powerless:
“They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of … states”.
We have huge potential in the UK to co-operate with like-minded countries, and that of course must include the EU. On that, the Prime Minister emphasised the benefits of a closer UK-EU relationship, forging links on trade, security and economic growth. This of course very much links to defence.
The 2025 strategic defence review was clear. It said:
“For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the UK faces multiple, direct threats to its security, prosperity, and democratic values”.
The UK is committed to reaching NATO’s target of 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. The defence investment plan has brought an additional £15 billion for defence over the period to 2029-30, on top of what was allocated in the 2025 spending review. Despite media comment over the last few days, the Chancellor has been consistent over the last few months that he would set a clear path to meeting our 3.5% NATO commitment at the next spending review and a target date for 3%.
I just repeat the words of the Prime Minister and Chancellor when they said that:
“the determination that we share is to do what’s necessary to keep the country safe, and a recognition, quite simply, of that truism, that for any government the first duty is to keep citizens safe”.
What else is there to say? I believe that our new Prime Minister offers us hope through strong intent and hard actions, actions to deliver economic growth, improve security, and provide better public services and relief from the cost of living increase. For all our problems and challenges, we as a country have very much to be proud of. We have so much going for us and it is that and the hope that the Prime Minister brings that underpin this Government’s programmes and priorities. I beg to move.
#
My Lords, there is a street in Liverpool called Hope Street. It is very special. At each end there is a cathedral and in between are cultural wonders: not only the grade 1 listed toilets in the philharmonic drinking house—the pub—but the Philharmonic Hall, the Everyman Theatre and, indeed, places of education. Hope has been the big vibe of our new Prime Minister, but we need to make sure that hope translates into delivery. I, too, am a person of faith, but having heard what the Prime Minister has been saying in various speeches, it may take a leap of faith to know how we will get that growth and hope for young people.
The Prime Minister should take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, who, just after hearing the Prime Minister the other day, said that what he said would worry investors. I appreciate that the Prime Minister wants to succeed—I am not disputing that in any way—but to try to destroy the past, including the very successful years of the Blair Government, would be a mistake, as would thinking that the 1970s were all rosy. We had huge mortgage rates and inflation and you needed candles to do your homework. I do not know whether the House of Lords was even able to keep the lights on while legislating.
However, I welcome the commitment made by the Prime Minister yesterday to get defence spending to 3% of GNI by 2030. I am sure that, if the Prime Minister needs to go back to the House of Commons to correct the record, he will but, actually, I do not think he wants to lose another Chancellor. I am confident that they will find a way together. They might want to take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, who set out a path to achieve that.
The First Secretary of State made an interesting Statement yesterday about rewiring the state. I welcome a lot of it, including more power going back to Ministers, who should be accountable. We will have to consider how we will legislate for quite a lot of it, because it is through legislation that many powers are being taken away from Ministers and given to non-ministerial departments and other bodies. We will also need to look into what is happening with the delays and consultations referred to. To give an example, we know that Labour Back-Benchers are nervous about changes to the welfare system. They are very quick to vote for legislation that rapidly increases benefits, but not so quick to look into necessary reforms. Indeed, the Timms review has apparently been delayed again. These are the sorts of challenges that vibes and hope will not get through; it will take detailed work to genuinely get the country on to a better path in terms of prosperity for all.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seemed to spend half his speech talking about the Opposition instead of the future of the Government, although he did mention the Fingleton review and the like. I gently remind noble Lords that, although there were, undoubtedly, difficulties in our time in office—part of which we shared with the Liberal Democrats during the coalition—we inherited an 11% deficit in 2010 and went through Covid when, frankly, the whole economy juddered to a halt. We undertook unprecedented borrowing to protect people’s health and to be ready to spring back, but difficult decisions were made which will take time to recover from. Therefore, hope is not enough. Let us all work together to make sure that we get the growth that we all desire.
#
My Lords, I am sure we all wish Andy Burnham well in his new job as our Prime Minister. He is able to connect with people, is a good communicator and he listens. He has certainly said the right things and spoken honestly and with sincerity about the major issues that we face. But speaking about issues is the easy part; carrying out the actions and holding his and his Government’s nerve when the going gets tough is a very different matter.
He was right to say that Brexit has had a devastating effect on our economy. It may be a bit of an understatement. I would also remind him, supportively, that if Labour at the time of Brexit had fully engaged with the remain campaign, rather than its then leader’s pipsqueak response, we would still be in and at the heart of Europe. As a result, GDP in the UK is 6% to 8% smaller than it should have been, and we have lost £90 billion a year in tax revenues. I look forward to the Government moving much closer to Europe on so many fronts and laying firm foundations to our eventually reapplying to join the EU.
The Prime Minister is committed to properly funded social care provision and has reached out to other parties to work with him. How refreshing is this? My party, which has also championed this issue, will certainly do so. I remember when local authorities had the financial resources to open care homes for the elderly. We have seen how private equity companies have moved in on children’s homes. I do not want to see care homes being run by multinational companies; my hope instead is that they be run by LAs, charities and not-for-profit providers, which are part of the community. The duty of any Government is to protect its people and ensure that the economy is on a firm footing. Paying debt charges—borrowing charges—of between £300 million and £337 million every single day is mad. Just think what that money could be spent on.
In financial education we teach children the dangers of interest charges. A “live now, pay later” economy is not what we should be having. To get the economy on an even keel will require nerves of steel, and tough decisions and tough choices will have to be made. Welfare spending is forecast to exceed £400 billion a year by the early 2030s. UK borrowing costs have risen sharply, with the 10-year gilt yield reaching 5.23% and the 30-year yield reaching 5.87%. We are being warned that we have halved the roughly £24 billion of fiscal headroom, while public spending is forecast to reach 44.9%.
The world is a very dangerous place, and who would have thought there would be a war on our own doorstep. Putin’s Russia is pushing the boundaries all the time, whether through proxy agents or misinformation. As a nation we need to make sure that if, God forbid, there is armed conflict, we can protect ourselves and support others. In recent years our military has been hollowed out, leaving the Army and the Navy the smallest since the Napoleonic wars. We need to be able to commit to our contribution of 3.5% not by promises but by having identified the money upfront. My party suggested war bonds as a means of raising finance. I hope the Government will explore that option.
Finally, I want to say how disgraceful it is that we are heading towards 1 million people not in school, training or a job. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this. We cannot wait for Alan Milburn’s report: we must do something now.
#
My Lords, the economist Keynes, upbraided for changing his view on some matters, allegedly responded with the phrase:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
In the 26 months since the general election, the facts have changed. We have seen the US assault on Iran, the explosive growth of AI, the devastating impact of climate change—alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—threatening harvests here while killing hundreds in Nepal and Tibet. Meanwhile, we stand closer to global war than at any time since my childhood. The facts have changed.
Keynes changed his mind. He did not resign and reapply for his post; rather, he sought to win others to his revised opinions. I have heard it said that our new Prime Minister must stick to the 2024 Labour manifesto or go to the country, but that is not how I believe Parliament should work. We are a well-informed and reasonable House. Many of us—not least on my own Bench, and the Cross-Benchers—owe no allegiance to any party master. We swear our oath, as do all noble Lords, to the Crown. We will scrutinise whatever matters are brought before us with our usual diligence. I would, however, be surprised and alarmed if we withheld consent simply because a proposal reflected the context of 2026, not 2024.
I turn to two specific points. I welcome what we heard from our Prime Minister about renewed efforts to tackle homelessness. My churches and other places of worship have been at the forefront of work on this, alongside the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The scandals of rough sleeping, of children trying to access education while living in temporary accommodation, cannot be allowed to continue. Having recently chaired the Manchester social housing commission, I welcome a determination to build more social homes.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I warm to the speeding up of the Casey review into social care. I pray that this time, we will end up with action, not just another report. I remember the Dilnot report, which I thought was a good thing at the time. But if we have to consider again in this House, as I suspect we will, matters such as assisted dying, at least we can do so in the context of a proper offer of palliative care to all, as the Prime Minister has said.
Three years ago, I was privileged to stand alongside Mr Burnham when he and the faith leaders of Greater Manchester met Pope Francis. We did not just give Pope Francis a signed Manchester United football shirt; we also committed ourselves to our net-zero target. The climate emergency is not some woke middle-class distraction; it is destroying the lives and livelihoods of the poorest across the globe—those in the communities I meet when I visit my Anglican sisters and brothers in the global South—and it is an increasing drag on well-being and the household economy in Britain.
This is, by its nature, a short debate, so I urge the Government to consider whether the best way to present fresh proposals to your Lordships’ House would be through a fresh Session of Parliament before the end of this year, so that His Majesty can set out a full programme before us and we can have a more substantial discussion at an early stage.
I began with an economist and segued via a pope, so let me end with a Protestant theologian. Martin Luther, challenged by the inertia of so much of the church of his day, urged his followers on with the words:
“If you must sin, sin boldly”.
I urge our new Prime Minister and his Government to show similar boldness, and then let us here in this Chamber weed out any of it we judge to be a sin.
#
My Lords, economic growth is the Government’s prime objective. Growth provides the resources to fund all our national goals, from health to the police; from defence to a fair distribution of income. Central to the growth objective is investment. Rachel Reeves laid the foundations for a growing economy with a 12% increase in public investment this year, but on that foundation must be built a programme of increasing investment in science and technology—the inventive core of a competitive economy.
Reflecting on the underlying strengths of Britain, politicians invariably cite our outstanding research universities, yet we now have daily reports of the financial difficulties being experienced by the university sector. We can debate the origins of those difficulties, but that is to look backwards. Looking forwards, we must ensure that the research universities thrive. They are Britain’s number one strength. That is why it was particularly distressing to learn on 9 July of the substantial cuts that are to be made to scientific research. By 2030, spending by the Science and Technology Facilities Council is to be cut by 15% in money terms, not even allowing for inflation. Research potentially impacted includes work on new cancer treatments and battery design.
The national research laboratories face the tightest squeeze: their funding is to fall by over half. Those are the national labs that developed radar, the computer and high-strength carbon fibre. The touch screen of your mobile phone was invented at a British national research lab—the Royal Radar Establishment. The national labs undertake research that would never be done in the private sector because the risks and uncertainties are too great, and the initial market often non-existent. Yet discoveries in those labs, often by serendipity, have changed the world.
Some research may, at first sight, appear irrelevant in the light of our economic problems—research in theoretical physics, for example—but that is a serious misconception. Consider, for example, the caesium atomic clock. Experimental physics developed at one of our national labs is now the basis of the timing of the internet and global navigation systems. Consider X-ray crystallography, a highly specialised branch of physics concerned with the arrangement of atoms. This technique now underpins genetic engineering, biotechnology and modern pharmaceuticals. More generally, consider the fact that, for years, this country’s finest mathematicians have worked on number theory, proving that the series of prime numbers is infinite, worrying about the minimum distance between primes, and so on. Totally abstract—yet, with the advent of digital computing, number theory is fundamental to all secure programming, including the programming of your mobile phone.