September 2025

What a powerful testimony that my hon. Friend has chosen to raise Norma Symonds, who was a former Conservative councillor in his constituency. She sounds like a remarkable woman, and I thank him for taking the opportunity to raise that today.

The victims of this scandal, like Jean, have suffered terribly for many years, as my hon. Friend describes. I am sure he will agree that no amount of compensation can make up for that, but that is not to say we should not continue, as this Government have, to ensure compensation is delivered swiftly, fairly and substantively to people like Jean. He will be aware that the Minister for the Cabinet Office updated the House in July. He has been very forthcoming with his updates to the House, and I w

Parliamentary appearance by Stephen Morgan

Parliamentary appearance by Lucy Powell

Parliamentary appearance by Claire Hughes

Parliamentary appearance by Claire Hughes

Parliamentary appearance by Mark Ferguson

That is a fascinating argument. The hon. Gentleman has argued in favour of the Lords for their restraint, and now he is arguing in favour of the Lords because they allow radicalism. That does not make any sense.

This is a fascinating return to the ’90s—like much about the Conservative party—but I think the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has missed the fact that there was an election last year in which the Labour party clearly won a mandate to deliver the removal of hereditary peers. What may or may not have been discussed in the 1990s is for the birds. There was an election. We won that election. We said we were going to do this. Let’s get on with it.

Will the hon. Member give way?

Will the Father of the House give way?

I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He makes a compelling point about other countries. Would he care to name some other countries that have people sitting in their legislature, able to introduce and vote on legislation, entirely by dint of their parentage? For the life of me, I cannot think of many examples.

This has been a suitably fascinating debate. I do not plan to speak for too long, because the points have already been well made. We have had 10 hours here and 52 flippin’ hours in the House of Lords on this concise, four-clause Bill, and now we have a number of amendments. I will address Lords amendments 1 and 2. Lords amendment 1 is fairly straightforward up and down. We know what it is. It is a wrecking amendment, pure and simple. It is nothing more than an amendment designed to preserve the

I delighted to inform the right hon. Member about the parliamentary Labour party’s Back-Bench committee, which meets the Prime Minister weekly when Parliament is sitting. I see at least one of my hon. Friends from the committee here—[Interruption.] In fact, there are two here. Staffordshire is well represented at the moment on the committee, and that is quite right—oatcakes all round for them, and of course for the Prime Minister.

I will happily take a point in a second from my hon. Friend, which I presume will be on the Lords amendment and not on oatcakes, but I wish to respond fully to the point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) before I got so distracted. I apologise for that self-distraction, Madam Deputy Speaker. The role of the Lords in our legislature is quite clear, as is the role of the monarch. In fact, I spoke this morning to students from Emmanuel college in my c

I thank my hon. Friend, although I do not think that will help me with my diet. However, I am doing the great north run on Sunday so I will probably need the calories. I am happy that we are having the debate, but I am somewhat surprised by its tenor, which runs contrary to the Salisbury convention—its correct name, of course, is the Salisbury-Addison convention; we too often neglect the Labour Member of that important duopoly. It has been surprising—particularly so on Second Reading, when the f

My long-standing views on reform of our Parliament can be looked up by any Member if they so wish. I very much welcomed, both on Second Reading and from the Front Bench today, the comments on the future reform of the Lords and what that might look like. However, I dare say to the hon. Gentleman that we might agree on some specific aspects more than he imagines. There has not been much discussion of Lords amendment 2, on Ministers’ pay. I welcome the Conservative party’s stout defence of working

With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on this Government’s vital work to give every child the best start in life. Within months of taking office we published our plan for change, a promise to improve the lives of working people and break down barriers to opportunity for people in this country. That plan set a target that a record proportion of children will start school ready to learn. Why? Because the foundations of the stronger society that we want to build must be laid

I start by welcoming the shadow Minister to his place on the Opposition Front Bench, but it is shocking that even now the Conservatives cannot bring themselves to recognise the significance of Labour’s childcare expansion, nor can they celebrate the new school-based nurseries that make more affordable childcare places available across the country. Despite the Conservatives’ scaremongering, nine in 10 parents have one of their first choice childcare places. This Labour Government inherited a pled

The Chair of the Select Committee is a real champion for maintained nurseries across the country, and I know that she shares the Government’s vision of ensuring that every child gets the best start in life and has the chance to succeed and thrive. As she knows, we set out our vision for early education in our landmark strategy in July. I look forward to receiving formal notice of her Committee’s inquiry and to working with her and the Committee in a constructive manner, putting the needs of chil