Shama Shilesh Tatler

“My Lords, first, it was a wonderful list from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, which I will also be printing a copy of, because it was very uplifting. I did not know Jo Cox. I never had the privilege of hearing her speak. But in the years since her murder,…”

“My Lords, first, it was a wonderful list from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, which I will also be printing a copy of, because it was very uplifting. I did not know Jo Cox. I never had the privilege of hearing her speak. But in the years since her murder, I have come to understand her through the words of those who did, and they describe somebody who believed with total conviction that politics could be a force for good, that public life could be conducted with decency, and that you could argue hard but still treat your opponents as human beings worthy of respect. It is in that spirit—Jo’s spirit—that I support the work of the Jo Cox Foundation and the Jo Cox Civility Commission. There are two recommendations in particular that I wish to speak on today: the urgent need to regulate social media platforms, and the responsibility of all of us to model the behaviour that we want to see. I have spoken before in this Chamber and in this House about the abuse and intimidation of elected councillors. I have described cars being set alight, candidates stalked, and a candidate punched unconscious on a doorstep. There are brilliant councillors, such as Stockton council leader, Councillor Lisa Evans, whom I spoke to earlier, who experience horrendous online abuse, including doctored AI images of herself being published online. She now says the abuse is something she is used to. This normalisation is unacceptable in our democracy. Over the past few weeks, many of us from many minority communities have begun to question whether we are truly welcome in this country any more. Something has shifted in our discourse, and there seems to be permission to say whatever we want and to behave without boundaries, regardless of the impact, from both the left and the right. I said then that we are failing the people who make local democracy work, and I say the same again today. I know from speaking to colleagues, councillors, MPs and activists that the scale of the problem has significantly worsened. Through the Jo Cox Civility Commission, we have a clear, cross-party, evidence-based framework of what needs to be done. First, on social media, the commission calls on platforms to acknowledge the dramatic significance of local politicians—not just MPs and Peers but councillors—and to provide better and faster routes for reporting abuse and misinformation. It calls on Ofcom to address specifically the abuse of elected representatives. The evidence of what happens when platforms abandon that responsibility is now stark and quantified. The House may be aware of the work of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Its report, Safety Off, published just this month, should be required reading for anyone who doubts the scale of what we face. In January 2025, Meta rolled back its content moderation policies, cutting proactive enforcement of rules against violence, incitement, hateful conduct and bullying. The CCDH predicted a surge in abuse. When it analysed nearly 8 million Facebook comments directed at Members of Congress, it found that abuse did not merely surge; it skyrocketed. Overall, abuse comments tripled and violent threats and hate quadrupled—and it was not directed only on one side of the political aisle. The CCDH named its report Safety Off because that is precisely what Meta did: it switched off safety. When a platform with billions of users removes guardrails against violent conduct, violence surges. That is not correlation; it is causation. The platforms know it and they choose it anyway. I am mindful that we are speaking in a British context, and there are benefits to social media, but the platforms and algorithms are the same, and the business model that rewards engagement is the same. This crosses borders: it shapes the environment locally, nationally and globally. Research makes it clear that the majority of councillors who experience abuse experience it online. It is targeted and co-ordinated, and disproportionately affects women, people of colour and those from minority communities, precisely the people whose presence in our politics makes it more representative and more reflective of the country it serves. When abuse drives out people, we are not just losing individuals; we are making our politics narrower and, in doing so, making it weaker. The commission’s second recommendation is harder. It asks all of us involved in politics to model respectful behaviour—in the Chamber, online and in public life—and it asks us to consider carefully the impact of our words on public discourse. I think of Jo Cox here again. Those who knew her speak of somebody who, by instinct, was a builder of bridges; who did not mistake loudness for strength or contempt for conviction; and who understood that the way you argue matters just as much as what you argue for. We live in a political moment that rewards the opposite: when outrage drives engagement; when inflammatory language spreads further and faster than measured argument; when the easiest path to a news cycle is to treat your opponent not as somebody with a different view but as an enemy to be destroyed; and when jokes are made about an arson attack on the Prime Minister’s home. Politicians at every level are not merely victims of this culture but, sometimes, the architects. When a public figure uses demonising language, it does not stay within the walls of Westminster—it travels, it gives permission and it is heard by the councillor chairing a planning meeting or by the activist sending a message at midnight. Online and offline abuse feed each other. What is said in public life shapes what is considered acceptable online, and what is permitted online shapes what happens on our streets. The commission asks us to take responsibility for that: not to be silenced or to abandon robust debate—Jo Cox herself fiercely believed in that—but to recognise that there is a difference between challenging an argument and degrading a person and between holding a power to account and making public life uninhabitable. Ten years on from Jo Cox’s murder, the threat to our democracy has not receded; it has changed shape, moved online and become faster and more persuasive, and it is actively enabled by the choices of the wealthiest companies in human history. The response that the commission calls for is, yes, to do the practical things—regulate the platforms, protect the candidates and resource the police—but also to do the harder thing of being the politician that you want others to be. I truly believe that we can, and I remain defiant against hate and division. We “have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.] That remains one of the most important sentences in modern British politics—and, a decade on, it remains work that we still have not finished.”

“My Lords, I welcome the debate and the opportunity to speak in support of the Government’s approach to one of the most pressing public health challenges of our time. I do so not as a politician but as someone who has the personal experience of what it m…”

“My Lords, I welcome the debate and the opportunity to speak in support of the Government’s approach to one of the most pressing public health challenges of our time. I do so not as a politician but as someone who has the personal experience of what it means to love somebody with a serious mental health condition. My late husband was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the age of 29, following a long process of trying to find answers to how he felt and because he knew he had to learn how to manage things, particularly for our daughter. Looking back, we came to recognise that many of the symptoms, such as anxiety and depression, had been present since his early teens. He was fortunate: he had a good support network around him, and I learned how to be there for him through his manic episodes, his depressive states and the darkest moments when he was living through suicidal thoughts. Not every family has that, and that is why this debate matters so much. I am glad that more people are looking for help with their mental health. It shows that the stigma around mental well-being is dissipating and, I hope, not manifesting in other ways. The crucial thing will now be how they are helped, whether it is in the home, in school, in the community or through a medical specialist. Among many things, the Mental Health Act 2025 crucially enhances the rights of children and young people, ensuring that their wishes and those of people close to them are central to decision-making. That matters deeply to me, not only because of my husband's experience but because I am the mother of a 17 year-old daughter who struggles with anxiety—and, I can assure this House, has plenty of grit. My husband’s journey has given me tools that many parents simply do not have. I understand the signs and I know how to have the conversations, but what I cannot protect her from is the environment in which she is growing up. That environment is far more exposing than anything her father or I faced at her age. NHS England’s Mental Health of Children and Young People in England report found that 20.3% of eight to 16 year-olds had a probable mental health disorder in 2023. The pandemic accelerated a crisis that was already building. Into that fragile landscape, came the relentless—I would argue deliberately engineered—pressure of social media. The Mental Health Foundation has warned that social media has contributed to a 47% increase in young people experiencing mental health harm in England since 2007. Most young people aged 16 to 21 have been exposed to harmful or disturbing content online, with over a third having encountered suicide or self-harm content and more than a quarter exposed to pro eating disorder material. The algorithms make it worse. These platforms are not neutral; they are designed to maximise engagement, and parents cannot just simply switch them off. The exposure is constant. Ofcom research showed that a third of eight to 17 year-olds said they had seen something online that they have found worrying or nasty in the past 12 months. That is not an accident; that is a design, by choice, by technology companies that have for far too long faced far too few consequences. I welcome the approach that the Government are taking on this. Social media can be a benefit, but we all must be alive to the very real harms. The consequences for young people are stark. YoungMinds reports that the number of children and young people referred to emergency mental health care rose by 10% between 2023 and 2024, with many stuck on waiting lists for months and years. The human cost of delays is not abstract; it is measured in school days lost, futures diminished and families left to cope alone. I welcome the Government’s response, with extra mental health care workers and, crucially, by 2029, national coverage for pupils covered by a mental health support team—something my daughter had the benefit of to manage her grief when her father passed away. Even if one young person gets the support they need earlier through this support from the Government, before a crisis deepens, the reforms will have made a difference. I know from my own family what early identification and proper support can mean. This Government are moving in the right direction on health and online. Our duty now is to ensure that they see these commitments through, fully resourced and understood, reaching every community in this country.”

“My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for bringing it forward. I declare that I am the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association and I have been a councillor for…”

“My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for bringing it forward. I declare that I am the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association and I have been a councillor for 12 years. I have literally just come from the LGA this morning where we were discussing this very topic. I am making my remarks with immense personal sadness that we are having to have this debate at all. I will not lie: following the recent elections, there have been moments when I have shed tears about the abuse that people who I call friends have had to face in these local elections. That in 2026 we must stand here and discuss the abuse, harassment and intimidation of elected councillors is a damning indictment of where our public discourse has arrived. Councillors are not distant figures in Whitehall. They are neighbours; they run food banks; they sit on planning committees and housing panels. They are the most accessible tier of our democracy, and that accessibility is now being weaponised against them. I have examples from councillors and candidates I know personally: cars set alight, sustained stalking campaigns, a candidate punched and knocked out recently on the doorstep. Just an hour ago I heard of a 74 year-old councillor in Plymouth being attacked in a stairwell. These are not abstractions; these are the lived realities of people who put their names forward to serve their communities. I come here today with some solutions. Three things must change. First, our institutions must do consistently better. Operation Ford was a welcome step, but it cannot be a one-off. Returning officers and monitoring officers at local authorities must be properly equipped, trained and empowered to act when elected members face threats. The Electoral Commission must play a more active role in setting and enforcing standards of conduct around elections. The Home Office must develop a far deeper understanding of the specific nature of this threat. Without that, enforcement will always lag behind the harm. I welcome the recent government proposals and action on councillors’ addresses being public on websites. Secondly, we cannot have this conversation without confronting social media. Misinformation spreads at scale and abuse is industrialised. Co-ordinated campaigns of harassment can be mounted in minutes or hours, targeting individuals with a ferocity that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. This is not only a safety issue but a democratic one. It puts people off standing for public office, and the evidence is clear that women are disproportionately targeted. We need robust, enforceable regulation of platforms, and the Online Safety Act was a start. Thirdly, perhaps most uncomfortably, we must look in the mirror. Culture flows from the top. When politicians at the highest level trade in contempt, when opponents are not just wrong but become enemies and when inflammatory language is rewarded with column inches, we should not be surprised that it filters down. We have a responsibility—every one of us—to model the public discourse that we want to see. Just because we have the right to say something, it does not mean that we should. Local democracy depends on ordinary people being willing to put their names on a ballot. We are making that harder and more dangerous. We can and we must do better.”

“My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on the Bill and to have listened to so many great contributions from noble Lords, including people I consider sporting legends. I represent and live in Wembley—the home of football and, more recently, rugby, America…”

“My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on the Bill and to have listened to so many great contributions from noble Lords, including people I consider sporting legends. I represent and live in Wembley—the home of football and, more recently, rugby, American football and the Olympics. It is a place that has, for over a century, sat at the intersection of sport, culture and community, which in that time has taught us everything we need to know about why legislation such as this matters and why getting it right is so important for the future of major sporting events in this country. I begin with a confession. When you mention that you represent Wembley or Brent, people assume you spend your time watching England triumph gloriously in the stadium. The reality is somewhat different: you spend time explaining to visitors that the Jubilee line is, in fact, faster than driving and that, no, they cannot park outside your house. The chaos that ensues—the wonderful, maddening, economically significant chaos—is exactly what the Bill is designed to protect and nurture. Before I turn to the economics and the legislation, I hope the House will permit me a moment of sentiment, because Wembley is not merely a stadium. It is a chapter of our national story, one that belongs proudly to the London Borough of Brent. It is precisely because of what Wembley represents to this country, to sport and to culture that the Bill matters so much. I am sure that noble Lords will have their own Wembley memories, including seeing Bolton elevated to the next league. In Brent, we know what we have. We hold this treasure with enormous pride. Wembley is not just our local stadium; it is a global icon that happens to be in our neighbourhood. For a venue such as Wembley to continue attracting the events that have made these moments possible, the UK needs to be able to offer international governing bodies something that no amount of good will alone can provide. Legal certainty, commercial protection and a framework that works are what the Bill will deliver. That is why it matters. In 2018, the Football Association commissioned Deloitte Sports Business Group to assess the economic impact of Wembley Stadium events. Its findings, presented to us at Brent Council, showed that the 58 events staged during the 2017-18 season resulted in a total economic impact to England of over £615 million and a direct economic impact to the borough itself of £150 million. These events supported over 1,800 full-time equivalent jobs in Brent and over 6,000 across England as a whole. Multiply that across every major international event that the UK could host, and consider what is at stake if we fail to make ourselves competitive. Every event that goes to another country rather than ours is not just a missed occasion; it is missed jobs, investment and opportunities for communities like the one I call home. The Bill directly addresses that risk. For the first time, we will be able to say to FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and many others, “Come here. The framework is already in place. We are ready”. In Brent, we have always been clear-eyed about this. We value the treasure that Wembley represents and, precisely because we value it, we recognise the responsibilities that come with it. A Bill that protects the commercial interests of major events must also speak to the communities that host them. I am glad that the provisions today create the foundations for exactly that. As a council, we understood from early on that Wembley’s importance demanded not just celebration but active stewardship. Brent developed deliberate, place-specific policy to manage the reality of hosting a global venue in the heart of a residential borough, and central to that was the establishment of an event day zone. The clean zone provisions in the Bill echo that approach at a national level, and that is to be welcomed. The Bill creates important new tools, but tools require people to wield them. I agree with my noble friend Lady Paul that the provisions on clean zones, trading restrictions and ticketing enforcement all depend on local authorities having the capacity, powers and funding to act. The benefits of Wembley are counted not only in pounds and jobs but in children lacing up their boots on a Saturday morning because they watched something extraordinary the night before. This is where the Bill’s importance extends beyond commerce, because it is events like these that protect the very events that inspire the next generation. Every major event at Wembley has a ripple effect through grass-roots football and sport in our borough: participation surges, girls’ teams form and schools request coaches. The fundamental aim of Wembley’s regeneration during my tenure as regeneration lead, and continuing today, was to deliver jobs, housing and community schemes, making Wembley a fantastic place to live and work for all its residents and visitors. That vision works only if the stadium and the community genuinely face each other: if outreach is real, if local young people see themselves in the sport that surrounds them, and if the high street on event days is a place of opportunity rather than disorder. In Brent, we worked hard to make that the case. The increased trade on local high streets on event days, when managed well, is meaningful for small businesses. In July 2022, 87,000 people packed into Wembley to watch England’s Lionesses beat Germany in the Women’s Euros final. The noise that night could, I am reliably informed, be heard in Harrow, and possibly Milton Keynes—maybe even coming from our own household. In that moment they did not just win a trophy but transformed a sport, and the momentum continues to build, in participation, attendance and aspiration. Young girls who had never been offered a football now play in organised leagues across Brent and beyond. The Women’s Euro 2022 final at Wembley was, by design, an accessible event. According to UEFA’s official ticketing announcement, the maximum face value for a final ticket was £50, with over half a million tickets across the tournament priced at £25 or less, and a family of four was able to attend for as little as £30. That was a deliberate, principled decision to make the Lionesses’ greatest moment reachable for ordinary families. The UK has an extraordinary offer to make the world of sport: world-class venues, passionate fans, unmatched heritage, and communities such as the one I represented that have demonstrated for over a century what it means to host events of global significance with pride and professionalism. The Bill gives us the legal framework to match that offer. Wembley is many things. It is a global icon and it is a community asset. It is, on certain Saturdays, an extremely good reason to avoid the North Circular. Above all, across 100 years, in its original form and its current one, it is proof of what major sporting events can do for a place—economically, socially, culturally and in shaping aspirations. The Bill creates the framework that Wembley and every future host community deserve. It will help ensure that events of that magnitude keep coming to the UK, and that when they do they are protected and properly managed, and their benefits are truly shared. For those reasons, and with the experience of Wembley behind me, I invite noble Lords to come and visit Wembley—not just during the championships, because Wembley’s regeneration is fantastic—and I commend the Bill to the House wholeheartedly.”

“My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and although I may not agree with all his points, I certainly respect his experience and views. I start by declaring that I work for the Local Government Association. I support…”

“My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and although I may not agree with all his points, I certainly respect his experience and views. I start by declaring that I work for the Local Government Association. I support the Bill, not only as a Member of this House but as someone who has spent years working at the coalface of housing need as a councillor who led on regeneration and planning for eight years, becoming one of London’s largest housebuilders. I welcome the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the importance and value of regeneration. I welcome the Bill and other measures that the Government have implemented to speed up housebuilding to address the housing crisis, including the £39 billion for social housing. Social housing is a foundation on which people build lives. It is where children grow up and go to school; it is where families such as mine put down roots and where communities are built. When we allow social housing stock to erode, we are not simply making a balance sheet error, we are narrowing life chances. As mentioned by my noble friend the Minister, the numbers are stark. It is a source of shame that more than 175,000 children are in temporary accommodation. More than 1.3 million households across England are currently on waiting lists for a social home. We simply do not have enough homes. The temporary accommodation bill alone should give us pause for concern. Government figures show that council spending on temporary accommodation reached £2.8 billion in 2024-25. This is not just a housing argument; it is a fiscal one. Research by the National Housing Federation and Shelter found that the government funding needed to build the social homes we require would be fully paid back within 11 years through savings on housing benefit, NHS costs and homelessness expenditure, and additional tax receipts from construction employment. If the case is so clear, why have we not built? I know from direct experience why councils find this so difficult. Barriers such as the state of the housing revenue account, the cost of public borrowing and workforce shortages have all been challenges to councils which want to build, and I welcome the steps the Government have taken to start to address these. Then there is right to buy, which the Bill rightly addresses. Right to buy was introduced in 1980, and today there are more than 131,000 fewer affordable homes than there were at the start, driven largely by the failure to replace homes under that scheme. The measures in the Bill to extend eligibility to 10 years, exempt newly built stock for 35 years, and provide a perpetual right for first refusal on resale are genuine improvements and I welcome them wholeheartedly. There is, of course, a rich irony in the fact that those on the opposite Benches who argue most loudly for the right for every family to own their own home have, at the local level, spent years frustrating the very development that would give families somewhere to live in the first place. We have all watched the pattern: support for housing in principle but objection to housing in practice—a planning application in a leafy ward that somehow never quite gets backed. The former Government removed mandatory housing targets and saw new approvals collapse accordingly in precisely those areas where housing need was greatest. We on this side of the House believe that you cannot claim to support housebuilding while blocking homes at every planning meeting. This Bill is for those who are willing to follow this through. Addressing supply must meet demand. I offer two suggestions. The first concerns a replacement ratio. Parliamentary scrutiny has previously found that the system should ensure that any home sold via right to buy is replaced like for like, with local authorities retaining all receipts to enable them to do so. A one-for-one replacement principle could be built into the framework, even implemented flexibly over a defined period, to give councils and communities the assurance that every sale is matched by a new beginning. The second concerns the flexibility of right-to-buy receipts. I raise this as someone who has seen at first hand how the current rules interact with the real complexity of delivering housing at scale. A major regeneration scheme—the kind that generally transforms a community, delivering hundreds of homes alongside schools, green spaces and new streets—may take five, seven or even 10 years from conception to completion. Planning processes can be lengthy and viability assessments contested. Development timelines are not solely within a council’s control. Restrictions on the use of right-to-buy receipts have been identified as a key barrier to council housebuilding and, although temporary flexibilities have been introduced at various points, they have not provided the certainty or permanence that councils need to plan with confidence. When receipts must be spent within fixed timelines or face clawback, councils are pushed to smaller, faster projects that may not represent the best long-term value, rather than larger, more complex schemes that transform communities. Allowing councils permanent flexibility to combine right-to-buy receipts with other government grants and to spend receipts at a timescale that reflects local development realities, particularly when councils can demonstrate that receipts are committed to a named scheme, could be a way forward. This is a good Bill. It is overdue and it is needed. But good housing policy is not made in this Chamber alone; it is made when legislation is matched by resources, by long-term partnership between central and local government, and by a shared willingness at every level—local, national, urban, suburban and rural—to say yes to the homes that our country needs. The National Housing Federation and Shelter estimate that 90,000 homes a year are needed to meet demand. This Bill is another step which this Government are taking. Every measure that we take in this House to bring those homes a little closer is a measure worth taking. I look forward to engaging with this Bill and I commend it to the House.”

“My Lords, I will speak about an issue that millions of our fellow citizens suffer under a system that exists not by accident but by design. Housing, His Majesty told us, is “a source of insecurity for many people”. That is perhaps the most restrain…”

“My Lords, I will speak about an issue that millions of our fellow citizens suffer under a system that exists not by accident but by design. Housing, His Majesty told us, is “a source of insecurity for many people”. That is perhaps the most restrained description of the leasehold system one could offer in this House. Some 91% of owner-occupied flats in England are leasehold. In total, one in five properties—nearly 5 million homes—is leasehold. These are not fringe numbers; they represent the daily lived experience of millions who do not truly own their home, and so it is right that it was included in the gracious Speech. Before I turn to the scandal of what leasehold has become, I want to say something about building homes in the first place. This is a matter of which I have direct experience. As a cabinet member for regeneration for eight years in Brent, I know what it takes to bring homes forward at scale. Building homes is not a technocratic ambition; it is a moral one. The Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament is right and necessary. But here is a truth that experience teaches: it is not enough simply to build homes; we must ask what kinds of homes they will be and on what terms people will hold them. We must ensure that the homes we build do not become the instruments of a new injustice. That is precisely where the leasehold system bites hardest. The majority of new homes delivered at scale will be flats—that is the arithmetic of housebuilding. If they are sold as leasehold, as has been the default for generations, every new home that we build is a potential new entrant to a system of tenure that is unjust. We cannot build our way to a fairer housing market while maintaining an unfair tenure at its heart. It is young people who bear the sharpest cost of both failures. For a generation of young people, the aspiration of home ownership is not being deferred; it is being extinguished. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that home ownership among 25 to 34 year-olds stood at 55% in 1997. By 2017, it had collapsed to just 35%. Since 2005, home ownership rates have fallen for every age group except those aged 65 and over, whose rate has risen by 7%. We are building a country in which housing wealth accumulates with age and inheritance, not with work and aspiration. That is an intergenerational injustice. When these young people finally reach the property ladder, often through a flat, which is often their only realistic option, they find themselves met not with security but with ground rent, service charges and a tenure that gives the cost of ownership without the control. The Government estimate that more than £600 million was paid by leaseholders in ground rents in 2025 alone. For a young person already stretched across a 30-plus year mortgage and a huge deposit, that is not a minor inconvenience; it is further extraction from those who can afford it least. The Government’s manifesto committed to bringing the feudal leasehold system to an end. This is structural reform of a system that has for generations denied working people the full fruits of home ownership. The Bill will cap ground rents, ban leasehold for new flats and make commonhold the default. On commonhold, the Bill is at its most radical and most just. Flat owners will hold their rents as freeholders, managing their building collectively as equals, with no absentee overlord and no arbitrary charges approved without scrutiny. As the chief executive of the Property Institute has observed, this model already operates in most countries across the world, including Scotland. The Government are proposing not revolution but joining the rest of the civilised property-owning world. Some 5 million leaseholders across England and Wales are waiting for this legislation, and the Government have an electoral mandate to act. I shall add only one note of caution. The Property Institute is right that empowered commonholders must be supported by qualified professional property managers and that resident empowerment must not outpace protections against an unregulated sector. This House will rightly scrutinise the safeguards with care. Let us be clear what this moment represents. The Government are committed to dismantling this archaic and iniquitous system, not overnight, not recklessly, but decisively and for good. For every young person currently saving for a deposit they fear will never be enough, for every leaseholder paying rent on land that they thought had been bought, and for every family in a new-build flat discovering that the tenure that was sold does not deliver the security they were promised, this Bill will matter. Building more homes is essential, but building them fairly is non-negotiable.”

“My Lords, I had the privilege of attending Kenton synagogue’s Friday night service last week. It happens to be my local synagogue, no more than two minutes from where I live. I heard huge concern among congregants not only about the recent attack at the…”

“My Lords, I had the privilege of attending Kenton synagogue’s Friday night service last week. It happens to be my local synagogue, no more than two minutes from where I live. I heard huge concern among congregants not only about the recent attack at the synagogue but about their general feeling of insecurity as Jews, which is something that we urgently need to address. It is not acceptable that a community feels and is facing that fear. The rabbi also spoke of the support and solidarity that they receive from the wider community. Can my noble friend the Minister give us more detail about how the Government, with other agencies, intend to promote positive interaction between communities as part of a long-term and sustainable future solution, so that the Jewish community is safe in this country?”

“My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friends Lady Antrobus and Lord Walker of Broxton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Teather—it is always great to see a member of the Brent family on the Benches—on their brilliant maiden speeches. I am grateful fo…”

“My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friends Lady Antrobus and Lord Walker of Broxton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Teather—it is always great to see a member of the Brent family on the Benches—on their brilliant maiden speeches. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at Second Reading. The two-child limit was introduced by the Conservative Government in 2017 and its consequences for child poverty were felt immediately. On taking office, the Labour Government inherited an economy in a fragile state and have worked deliberately and responsibly to create the conditions in which bold action on child poverty could be taken. The Bill is the result of a Government who have prioritised why they came into power. Let us be clear about what this policy has done to families across our country. The Child Poverty Action Group has described it plainly. This is a “tax on siblings”. It severs the fundamental “link between what children need and the support they receive”. Government data in July 2025 shows that more than 1.6 million children live in households affected by the limit—that is one in nine children in England, Scotland and Wales. That number grows every year. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s UK Poverty 2026 report is sobering. For 2023-24, it showed 4.5 million children living in poverty in the United Kingdom. That is a scandal. The Bill is a vital first step, not the last. The case for this Bill is not just economic; it is educational. Children growing up in poverty already start behind their peers, and the gap widens every year. The Education Endowment Foundation has found that pupils eligible for free school meals are, on average, 18 months behind their classmates by the time they sit their GCSEs. The Social Mobility Commission has shown that children from the poorest households are significantly less likely to achieve the grades needed to access higher education or skilled employment. Poverty does not merely limit what children can afford; it limits what they could become. When we remove the two-child limit, we are not simply putting money into households; we are unlocking potential that this country cannot afford to waste. For children growing up in households affected by the two-child limit, the barriers begin long before the school gates. Families are unable to afford school uniforms, school trips and even basic stationery—the small things that determine whether a child feels that they belong. Teachers report children arriving hungry and unable to concentrate. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that a 10% rise in family income during childhood leads to measurable improvements in educational attainment and earnings in later life. In other words, poverty is not a temporary inconvenience; it is a force that shapes a child’s trajectory for decades. The Bill is an investment in the education of future generations. The IFS, the Resolution Foundation, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and CPAG alike all say that lifting the limit is the single most cost-effective lever the Government can pull to reduce child poverty. Then, there is the so-called rape clause, which requires women to prove non-consensual conception in order to secure exemption for a third or subsequent child. It is degrading, traumatising and utterly incompatible with a just society, and I am proud that this Bill will consign it to history. The Bill before us is not a merely a policy change; it is a moral statement. It says that we will not hold children responsible for the circumstances of their birth. The Resolution Foundation puts the figure as high as 500,000 children lifted out of poverty when the two-child limit’s removal is combined with expansion of free school meals. CPAG has estimated that the long-term cost to society of entrenched child poverty stands at £39 billion a year in lost tax revenue and increased demand on public services. We spend more managing the consequences of child poverty than it would cost to prevent it. The Bill does not stand alone; it is the centrepiece of the most ambitious child poverty strategy in a generation. Taken together with measures in the Government’s child poverty strategy, these are not tinkering at the edges. This is structural change, addressing the root causes of poverty that has been allowed to deepen over the last 14 years of austerity. This is a rare moment of consensus across major research and advocacy organisations throughout this country. Ending the two-child limit is the single most cost-effective action this Government can take. The moral case is unanswerable, and the time has come. I end by quoting Cicero: “What society does to its children, so will its children do to society”.”

“My Lords, I am proud to rise on International Women’s Day to speak on the theme “Give to gain”, especially as we will be hearing from a number of brilliant maiden speakers today, including my noble friends. At first hearing, “Give to gain” may sound l…”

“My Lords, I am proud to rise on International Women’s Day to speak on the theme “Give to gain”, especially as we will be hearing from a number of brilliant maiden speakers today, including my noble friends. At first hearing, “Give to gain” may sound like a transaction, but I believe it speaks to something far deeper and older than that. It speaks to the truth that when we invest in women—in their rights, dignity and power—we do not give anything away; we gain everything. We gain stronger economies, healthier families, more just societies and democracy worthy of the name. Today I do not only want to speak to the language of economic dividends or policy frameworks; I want to speak about courage. There is no better place to begin than with a woman named Jayaben Desai. In the summer of 1976, Jayaben Desai, a Gujrati Indian immigrant, like my family, barely five foot tall, walked off the production line at Grunwick Film Processing Labs in Brent, north London. Her manager gave her an ultimatum: work overtime or leave. She left. She then stood on a picket line for nearly two years, rallying postal workers, trade unionists and politicians, drawing tens of thousands to those streets, including people I still call friends. When asked how a small group of south Asian women could possibly take on the establishment, she replied with characteristic fire: “We are the lions, Mr manager. When you sleep, the lions will still be there”. Grunwick management never fully conceded, but what Jayaben Desai gave the rest of us was a monument to solidarity—proof that women who far too often were dismissed as invisible could stand up, speak out and change the conversation of a nation. She gave her fight and we gained our conscience. Yet, 50 years on from Grunwick, we must be honest about how far we still have to travel. The gender pay gap in the United Kingdom remains stubbornly persistent. Women still make up a disproportionate share of those in poverty, of unpaid carers, and of workers in insecure employment. Globally the picture is still darker. In too many places, girls are denied schooling, women are denied the vote and, scarily, more are exploited. We have not finished giving, which means we have not finished gaining. I have a daughter. She is 16 years old. She is bright, funny, opinionated—much like her mother—and everything you would want a young woman to be. She is growing up in a world, like the girls I taught, that in some ways is immeasurably better than the one Jayaben faced in 1976. She has legal protections, educational opportunities and role models that her generation can see and name. But she is also growing up online and what she encounters there—what all our daughters encounter there—is a form of misogyny that is not shouted from a factory floor or written in a policy document. It is algorithmic; it is ambient; it is everywhere. It is the content that tells her that her worth is in her appearance. It is the influencers and, worse still, the ideologues who have built an entire platform on the idea that women’s progress has gone too far—that feminism is the problem and the girls who speak up are asking for what they get. It is a normalisation of sexual harassment in comment sections. It is the boys in her class who have been radicalised, quietly and systematically, by voices online that trade in contempt for women. Jayaben faced her oppressors across the factory gate. My daughter and her generation face theirs through a screen. This is not a peripheral concern for this House. It is central to the question of what it means in 2026 to invest in the next generation of women. “Give to gain” means giving women—our daughters—the digital literacy to recognise manipulation and building platforms that are safe by design. It means giving them the knowledge that what they are experiencing is not a personal failing. It means giving our sons something better too, because the answer to online misogyny is not only protection but a kind of education in the values and the example that we choose to model for all our young people. “Give to gain” is not a transaction or a trade, but the understanding that when any of us gives courage, it gives the rest of us something to gain. When any of us gives voice to the voiceless, the voiceless are no longer voiceless. On this International Women’s Day, let us honour Jayaben Desai and the millions of women like her—seen and unseen, celebrated and forgotten—who gave so we might gain. The lions are still here. They are in every workplace that denies equal pay, every street that is unsafe after dark and every classroom where a girl is told to dream smaller. Let us ask ourselves, with urgency and humility, what are we prepared to give?”

“I declare an interest as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association. As my noble friend will know, councils of all colours have worked together with communities to put forward proposals, knowing the opportunities and benefits that…”

“I declare an interest as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association. As my noble friend will know, councils of all colours have worked together with communities to put forward proposals, knowing the opportunities and benefits that local government reorganisation will bring. Whatever the outcome of the elections in May, can my noble friend the Minister provide reassurance to those councils and communities on the timeline of the local government reorganisation?”

“My Lords, I welcome this debate on donations to political parties. It is right that we examine how our political system is funded and that we do so with seriousness and transparency. I welcome the Government’s announcement today on the Representation of…”

“My Lords, I welcome this debate on donations to political parties. It is right that we examine how our political system is funded and that we do so with seriousness and transparency. I welcome the Government’s announcement today on the Representation of the People Bill and, in particular, measures to protect candidates, campaigners and staff from intimidation or abuse. At its heart, this debate is about strengthening our democracy and rebuilding public trust and about ensuring that participation in our democratic life is meaningful and fair. That is not only about money; it is about participation and franchise. It is in that spirit I slightly change tack from some of the focus around funding and speak in support of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. Young people today are growing up in a context markedly different from that which shaped many of us in this House. They face existential challenges that are not abstract or distant but immediate and personal. Climate change, housing insecurity and economic and global uncertainty threaten not only their prosperity but their sense of future. Yet many feel that they have little agency over the decisions taken here in Parliament that will define those futures. Extending the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds offers elected representatives a powerful incentive to engage seriously with this cohort. It encourages political parties, candidates and institutions to speak with young people, not merely about them. It creates space for dialogue, political education and a politics that listens as well as instructs. The evidence supports this approach. Research by the Electoral Commission shows that nearly three-quarters of young people believe that politics should be taught more in schools and colleges. While many understandably encounter political content through social media, they are far more likely to trust the information that they learn about politics in an educational setting. Yet many young people still do not feel confident about voting; they want to understand how voting works, why it matters and how to make informed choices. Crucially, the same research tells us that, when young people understand how politics works and why it is important, they are far more likely to get involved and perhaps tackle the issues that the debate has already raised. That is why I particularly welcome the focus on civic education throughout schooling. Extending the franchise alongside strengthened civic education is not a leap of faith; it is a coherent and evidence-based approach to democratic renewal. Young people today are asking for the same recognition. They are not disengaged because they do not care; many are disengaged because they care deeply and do not see their concerns reflected in decision-making or accessibility to politics. Granting them the vote is not a cure-all, but it is a meaningful and practical step in affirming that their stake in society is real. As legislators, it is incumbent on us to strengthen, not narrow, the foundations of our democracy. Engaging young people fosters habits of participation, accountability and civic responsibility that endure across a lifetime. It reinforces the principle that democracy is not only something that we inherit but something that we must renew. Extending the franchise is an act of confidence in our young people and in our democratic system to grow stronger through inclusion. In a debate rightly focused on trust and democratic integrity, I urge the House to see this measure as an opportunity that we should embrace.”

“My Lords, I apologise for not having been here previously. I was not a Member of the House when the Bill first came to the House, so I could not speak on it then, but I would like to speak on it today. I will set out some context about my understanding o…”

“My Lords, I apologise for not having been here previously. I was not a Member of the House when the Bill first came to the House, so I could not speak on it then, but I would like to speak on it today. I will set out some context about my understanding of planning and where I come from. I was eight years as a planning lead in my local council, as the regeneration and planning cabinet member. I should also point out that I am an employee of the Local Government Association and I am still a councillor, so my remarks will be based on my own opinions and experience. I will speak on Amendment 126, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for explaining her position on her amendment. I want to challenge that perception with my experience. I do not think this amendment is needed in actual practice. The points around democratic accountability and community involvement are based within the planning system already and the planning reforms that have come through. Good local plans should have involvement of the community and are democratically voted on in a full council chamber. Should an applicant come to a local council with a planning application and in good faith follow those policies, there should be some safeguards around making sure that those plans are upheld and seen through in development coming forward. In my experience in London, in the eight years that I was planning lead, not one application needed to be called in or used by the Mayor of London to challenge what the local council had done, because we made sure that the developer or the applicant was able to follow the planning policies. So it is important to note that, in a good planning process, the local plan should be where the heavy lifting is done through community engagement and democratic accountability.”

“My Lords, trust in politics is also affected by the safety and well-being of elected representatives and candidates. In my role as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association, I have seen a worrying increase in abuse and threats tow…”

“My Lords, trust in politics is also affected by the safety and well-being of elected representatives and candidates. In my role as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association, I have seen a worrying increase in abuse and threats towards representatives from all parties and physical attacks on them. Only a couple of weeks ago, a councillor’s car was set alight. Democracy is at its best when we can respectfully disagree. Can my noble friend assure this House on what the Government are doing to address these concerns?”

“My Lords—”

“My Lords, as the mother of a tech-savvy 16 year-old, access to social media is a topic of discussion in our household and among her friends. They do not believe an outright ban will work. Parents who have suffered incredible loss have also voiced differi…”

“My Lords, as the mother of a tech-savvy 16 year-old, access to social media is a topic of discussion in our household and among her friends. They do not believe an outright ban will work. Parents who have suffered incredible loss have also voiced differing views on how we keep children safe online, which is why I believe a consultation is the best way to proceed. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will make sure that all views are considered in the consultation?”

“My Lords, it is a great honour to rise for the first time here in your Lordships’ House, and I do so with a profound sense of humility. To sit among Members whose experience, wisdom and dedication to public service I have long admired is both a privilege…”

“My Lords, it is a great honour to rise for the first time here in your Lordships’ House, and I do so with a profound sense of humility. To sit among Members whose experience, wisdom and dedication to public service I have long admired is both a privilege and a responsibility I do not take lightly. I begin by thanking the staff of this House—the clerks, Black Rod’s team and particularly the doorkeepers, whose professionalism, warmth, patience and, today, hydration have been extraordinary as I have found my way, mainly slowly, around its procedures and corridors. I am also deeply grateful to my two sponsors, my noble friends Lord Evans of Sealand and Lord Katz, for their generosity, encouragement and guidance. Their support has meant a great deal to me, and I thank them sincerely for welcoming me so warmly to your Lordships’ House. I would also like to thank my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Kennedy of Southwark for helping me through this very surreal process. It is a great honour to be the first Jain in Parliament, and swearing my Oath of Allegiance on Jain scripture was a moment of great significance for my community and family in London, Kenya, India and beyond. My journey to this place has been shaped by family, by education and by public service. My grandmother and my mother both lived lives of unshakable commitment to their families, whose lives are marked by challenges and community expectations, but also by determination. They believed deeply in education, not as an abstract good but as a practical route to dignity, independence and opportunity. My father, a small business owner, worked hard to ensure that my brother and I could stand on firmer ground than he had himself. I learned that progress is rarely sudden and never accidental. It is built patiently through work, service and a sense of responsibility to others. Those values have guided me through every stage of my life. They also sustained me through profound personal loss. My husband Richard died in 2016 at the age of 36. Living with bipolar, he was a man of great kindness and creativity and an exceptional singer, whose life was cut short by cancer. His experience deepened my understanding of mental health, grief and the fragile line many people walk while still contributing richly to their families, workplaces and communities. Ten years ago, my life was very different. I was a back-bench councillor, a mum to a six year-old, a carer to my husband and a history teacher. Had life been different, I would probably be talking about being a head teacher rather than my elevation to this place. I mention this not for sympathy but because it strengthened my conviction that public policy must be grounded in compassion, and that our systems, whether in health, housing or employment, must be designed for real lives, not idealised ones. As I said earlier, my professional life began in education. Teaching is an act of hope. Every day, you stand before young people and make a quiet promise that their background need not determine their future. I taught students of extraordinary talent and ambition, many navigating overcrowded housing, economic insecurity and uncertainty about what lay ahead. They taught me that aspiration exists everywhere but opportunity does not. It was those experiences that led me into local government, where I sought to turn principle into practice. As a Labour councillor in the London Borough of Brent, home of Wembley Stadium, I had the privilege of working in one of the most diverse and dynamic boroughs in the country. I led work on regeneration and planning, and my work was driven by a simple belief that growth must be inclusive and development should strengthen communities. I encountered daily the reality of families living in temporary accommodation and young people being priced out of housing, often due to wage stagnation. These challenges demand long-term thinking and political courage, and I am proud of our work to deliver housing of all tenures and to play our part in tackling the housing crisis. Alongside this, I led work in economic development, with a particular focus on supporting local businesses and high streets—the subject of this debate. High streets are not merely commercial spaces but social infrastructure. When they thrive, communities thrive. When they decline, the effects ripple far beyond empty shopfronts. Working in partnership with the Mayor of London, I helped to deliver programmes to support small businesses in Wembley to get online, recognising that digital access is no longer optional but essential. I championed affordable workspace policies, ensuring that start-ups and growing businesses could access space they could genuinely afford and remain rooted in their communities, and supporting businesses to adapt and grow—the power of local, regional and national government working together. I come to this House shaped by education, local government and lived experience. I do not claim expertise in all fields, but I hope to contribute particularly to debates on education, housing and regeneration—areas where long-term thinking is essential. I look forward to joining your Lordships’ House in scrutinising, revising and improving legislation. In that spirit, I bring with me the voices of the students I taught, the residents I served, the businesses I worked alongside and the families whose values brought me here. I will endeavour to listen carefully, to speak thoughtfully and to serve with integrity. I thank all noble Lords all for the warmth of their welcome, and I look forward to contributing to the vital work of this House.”