What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether the Government are planning to change the law to deport Rochdale grooming gang leader, Shabir Ahmed.
Shabir Ahmed has committed some of the most despicable crimes imaginable. As the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, he was responsible for grooming, trafficking and raping children as young as 12 years old. He was jailed in 2012 for 30 counts of child rape. His victims were promised that when he got out of prison, he would be deported back to Pakistan. He has been released from prison, but now we are told that he will not be deported because of a provision in the 1971 Immigration Act. The idea that he might be allowed to stay in this country because of a clause in a decades-old law designed for a completely different time and context is not just absurd, but sickening. As recently as 2023, parole officers concluded that Ahmed posed a “very high risk of serious harm” to children. How can he possibly be allowed to walk the streets again? When the law produces an outcome that is clearly so wrong, the law must be changed. The Government must now change this law to make sure that we can remove Ahmed. Conservative Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have made it clear that, if the Home Secretary puts forward changes to the law that would allow us to deport Shabir Ahmed, we will support them. The shadow Home Secretary has already drafted an amendment that the Government could adopt. The argument for deporting Ahmed is clear, and the mechanism has already been created. All that remains in question is whether the Government have the will to act. If so, we will be happy to support them. If they do not, people across this country will rightly ask, as they are already asking, whether this is a Government that can really keep the British people safe.
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I begin by thanking Richard Donaldson for creating this petition and the more than 200,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed it. I also thank the 205 people from my own constituency who added their names. As Members know, my role today is to introduce the petition and facilitate this debate. However, having considered the evidence and having spoken to the petition creator, I believe he raises an important point that Parliament should not dismiss. At its heart this debate asks a simple question: should someone who has been convicted of terrorism offences be entitled to seek public office? For me the answer is no—not because I reject the principle of rehabilitation and not because I believe people cannot change, but because holding elected office is not an automatic right. It is a privilege bestowed by the public, and with that privilege comes an expectation that those who seek to represent our communities demonstrate respect for the democratic institutions they wish to serve. For most people, the current law simply does not pass the common sense test. We already prevent certain people from standing for elected office. Individuals may be disqualified because they are subject to certain bankruptcy restrictions. Others are disqualified because of corrupt electoral practices, certain sexual offence notification requirements or offences involving intimidation of candidates. Yet someone with a historical terrorism conviction may still be entitled to stand for election. Many members of the public struggle to understand that distinction. Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. It is an attack on democracy itself. It seeks to replace political debate with violence. It seeks to intimidate Governments, frighten communities and undermine the rule of law. That is why Parliament has consistently recognised terrorism as different. We have unique counter-terrorism powers, unique sentencing provisions and unique monitoring arrangements following release from prison. We recognise that terrorism is fundamentally different because it is directed against the democratic values on which this country is built. If we accept that principle elsewhere in our law—and I believe we should—it is entirely reasonable to ask whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permitted to hold democratic office.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I will come on to that individual’s case shortly, but I do share his concerns. Indeed, there were cross-party concerns at the time of that individual’s candidacy—both Labour and Conservative politicians expressed concerns about that. As I say, I will move on to that later in my speech.
I am grateful for that point. That is accurate, but the fact that anybody would want to vote for a convicted terrorist does raise serious questions, which I think we should be concerned about. Every day we walk through this palace, reminded of the human cost of terrorism. Within these walls are memorials to Members of Parliament murdered in terrorist attacks, including Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Their lives were taken because they believed in democracy. Those memorials serve as a permanent reminder that terrorism is not simply another criminal offence; it is an attack on democratic life itself. We should not forget the many other victims of terrorism across our country. From Lockerbie to the 7 July bombings, the Manchester Arena attack and the attack here at Westminster in 2017, terrorism has left deep scars on communities throughout the United Kingdom. Those attacks were intended not just to kill innocent people, but to undermine our confidence in democracy and the rule of law. The petition before us arises because many members of the public were surprised to discover that under our current law, someone convicted of terrorism offences in certain circumstances could stand for elected office. Historical convictions, even for very serious offences, may not prevent someone from standing. Indeed, candidates largely self-certify that they are eligible, with returning officers having only limited powers to determine whether someone is disqualified. The Government’s response to the petition states that there are currently “no plans” to change those rules. I hope that today’s debate will persuade the Minister to think again. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the catalyst for this petition was the case of Shahid Butt, who stood as a candidate in Birmingham during this year’s local elections. It is a matter of public record that he was convicted in Yemen in 1999 of involvement in a terrorist bombing plot that targeted, among other sites, the British consulate and that he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Mr Butt has consistently maintained that he was wrongly convicted and that his confession was obtained through torture. Those claims have been reported widely. Members may hold differing views about that case, but today’s debate is about something much broader than one individual. It is about whether our electoral law contains an obvious gap that should now be addressed. There is also a practical consideration that deserves attention. If someone convicted of terrorism offences were elected to this House, the parliamentary authorities would have little choice but to issue them with a parliamentary security pass, allowing routine access to much of the parliamentary estate. Members often focus on ourselves, but this is also about the thousands of people who work here every day: our staff, Clerks, police officers, security personnel, cleaners, caterers and many others. They deserve to know that Parliament takes their safety seriously. Some will argue that once someone has served their sentence, they should once again enjoy the full rights of citizenship. That is an important principle, but society already accepts that certain positions carry additional responsibilities and require higher standards. Serving in Parliament, in a devolved legislature or on a local council is different from ordinary employment. They are positions of public trust. The public are entitled to expect exceptionally high standards from those who seek those positions. This debate is therefore not about preventing rehabilitation. It is not about denying someone the opportunity to rebuild their life. It is about deciding who should exercise democratic authority on behalf of others. Those are not the same things. Others may point to Northern Ireland and the peace process. It is important that we approach that history carefully and respectfully. The Good Friday agreement transformed Northern Ireland and brought to an end decades of violence. Nothing I say today should diminish that achievement. Indeed, we should rightly distinguish between those convicted of terrorism offences and figures such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, neither of whom was convicted of terrorism offences. Today’s petition concerns something much narrower. It concerns people who have been convicted of terrorism offences. That distinction matters. It is also worth noting that concern about this issue is not confined to one political party. Following the Birmingham case, both Labour and Conservative Members publicly expressed concern that someone convicted of terrorism offences could stand for election. Victims of terrorism have questioned whether such individuals should be eligible to represent the public in a democracy. This should not be a partisan issue. It should be about maintaining public confidence in our democratic institutions. Democracy depends on not only free elections but public confidence in those elected. If the public lose faith that Parliament is capable of drawing sensible lines around who is fit to hold elected office, that confidence is weakened. Parliament should never be afraid to legislate where the public can plainly see that the law no longer reflects common sense. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State for Defence recently acknowledge that the Government are considering this issue through the defending democracy taskforce. That is welcome, but today’s debate gives Members an opportunity to go further. The obvious question is: what should change? The petition proposes a straightforward legal disqualification, preventing those convicted of terrorism offences from standing for elected office. The detail would require careful consideration. There would undoubtedly need to be safeguards where overseas convictions were concerned, to ensure that politically motivated convictions, handed down by regimes without independent judicial systems, were not automatically recognised. Those are important drafting questions, but they are not reasons for doing nothing; they are reasons for careful legislation. The principle is clear: those convicted of terrorism offences should not be entrusted with elected office. Our democracy is one of Britain’s greatest achievements. We rightly welcome robust political disagreement; we encourage free speech and we welcome vigorous campaigning, but democracy also has the right—indeed, the responsibility—to defend itself against those who have sought to destroy it through violence. That is not intolerance; it is common sense, it is resilience, and it is about protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions. I thank Richard Donaldson once again for bringing this matter before Parliament. Petitions such as this demonstrate democracy working as it should: a member of the public identified what he believed to be a gap in our law, more than 200,000 people agreed, and today Parliament has the opportunity to consider whether that gap should be closed. For my part, I believe that it should. I hope that the Minister will move beyond acknowledging the issue and commit the Government to examining proportionate, workable and robust legislative options. Those who seek to destroy our democracy should not be able to exploit it.
I thank all the Members who participated in this important debate, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). All Members made very valid points, particularly both the Members from Northern Ireland—the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) —who are obviously acutely aware of the challenges of having terrorists operating in their democratic institutions. I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim; I totally forgot that Martin McGuinness had been convicted. Of course, anybody who is convicted of a terrorism offence should not be allowed to stand for office. I appreciate the Minister’s response and her initially positive style, but I am a bit disappointed with her conclusion. This is such an important principle: people who want to destroy our democracy, who want to pull the rug from under us and who have gone to great lengths to bring down everything that we in this place believe in, should absolutely not be allowed to stand for election, whether that is for local government, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament in Westminster. If they have ever held those fundamental views about bringing down the very pillars of what our country believes in, they absolutely should not be allowed to stand for Parliament. I was disappointed that the Minister could not quite bring herself to say that. Yes, there are challenges around overseas convictions, but we employ very clever drafters for our Government; they can come up with wording to get around that to ensure that those who have been wrongly accused of something overseas are not debarred from standing for election. Yes, we have disqualification rules, but we should be able to extend them further to ensure that terrorists—those who want to destroy our country and the institutions we in this place guard and protect dearly—are barred from standing for Parliament. I hope the Minister and her Government will reflect on today’s debate and on what the petitioner and all those who signed the petition put forward. I thank Richard Donaldson again for bringing this petition forward, and all Members who have taken part. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions.
May I echo your sentiments, Mr Speaker, about Sir George Howarth, and pass on the Opposition’s condolences to his family and friends? Also, for their first oral questions, I welcome the new Ministers to the Front-Bench team. Today’s reports of Russian provocation illustrate the scale of the threat from Putin, but they also show why Britain needed a defence investment plan that was fully funded, instead of one with a £5 billion IOU for the next Prime Minister. On that point, the Defence Readiness and Industry Minister, responsible for producing the DIP, admitted on the media round last week that he only found out about the missing £5 billion after the DIP was published. When did the Secretary of State find out?
This is not good enough. The defence investment plan has completely unravelled because, despite it being many months late, the Government still have not worked out where they are going to get the money from. Either the Secretary of State knowingly signed off a defence investment plan with a £5 billion poison pill for the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), or the Defence Secretary was, like his procurement Minister, kept in the dark by the Chancellor. Which is it?
On the day of its publication in June 2025, the headline promise of Labour’s strategic defence review was a commitment to buy “up to 12 attack submarines”. At the time, the Labour Government could not answer the question of exactly how many submarines that meant in practice, but they assured us that the detail of all their SDR promises would be set out in the defence investment plan, so exactly how many attack submarines are they going to buy?
I currently have 11 unresolved cases in my constituency and the numbers are going up. My constituents deserve certainty about these unacceptable delays. During Cabinet Office questions on 25 June, I raised these failures with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), who assured the House that “all…levers” were being used to ensure that Capita met its end of June deadline. Can the Minister tell us what those levers were, given the fact that they appear to be attached to nothing—Capita has still failed to meet that deadline—and what levers he will pull when the August deadline is, inevitably, not met either?
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. With your indulgence, I will start by welcoming the new Conservative Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South. I am sure that, in a series of firsts as he finds his feet around the House of Commons, his first Delegated Legislation Committee will be the one that stands out most in his mind. As the Minister laid out, the draft regulations make several technical amendments to the capacity market. They are perhaps most notable for the absence of the proposed multiple price capacity market, which would have created a two-tier system that the industry warned would result in increased costs for consumers. I understand that the Government have said that these changes would “ensure the continuation of security of supply while supporting the transition to a decarbonised energy system.” However, can the Minister explain why the results of the latest four-year-ahead capacity market auction secured only 40 GW of generating capacity, which was 3 GW less than the year before? Not only is that less than the current peak demand of 50 GW, but it is less than the projected peak demand of around 80 GW by 2030. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have warned countless times that forcing decarbonisation and electrification on to families and businesses at any cost would simply result in industry shutting down and livelihoods being lost. Although the Government have rejected those warnings in public, the results of that auction seem to suggest that they have privately accepted the fact that industrial energy consumption will fall thanks to their policies. I have no doubt at all that the Minister will seek to reassure the Committee that the Government’s mass roll-out of renewable energy and associated infrastructure will make concerns about security of supply redundant. However, what this completely fails to address is the cold, still winter nights when electricity demand is at its highest, yet generation from wind and solar is effectively nothing—precisely the scenario that the capacity market is supposed to address through securing firm power from conventional means, such as gas. Even assuming the Government’s highly optimistic predictions that the billions of pounds-worth of additional generating capacity, battery storage systems and grid connections needed to support an entirely intermittent renewables-based electricity grid will be online by 2030—which currently seems very unlikely—that would still not ensure the security of supply that our electricity grid needs. As both the Government and the National Energy System Operator have admitted, nearly all our currently installed generating capacity from gas will need to remain online in 2030 to meet peak demand. However, by refusing to support private investment to build new gas power stations, placing more burdensome decarbonisation requirements on new and refurbished generators, as well as pushing gas to the sidelines of our electricity supply while still expecting full capacity to remain available, the Government are making continued operation for many gas power stations economically and technically unviable. Let us be very clear what the Government’s energy policy means: placing increasing strain on demand through legally binding electrification and decarbonisation requirements; reducing supply by failing to secure new firm power from gas; and the Government forcing families and businesses to ration electricity through consumer-led flexibility at the risk of facing blackouts. Although the Opposition do not oppose the very technical amendments made by these draft regulations, we believe that it is well past time for the Government to accept that they cannot sustain our energy system on blind faith in renewables, and that they must instead fully support new generating capacity from gas and nuclear.
In a written answer to me last month, the Government revealed that the Army is conducting a review of its reserve basic training. I believe that this was the first time that was disclosed to this House. Will the Secretary of State commit to putting the terms of reference for that review in the Library of the House, and will he commit to not closing Prince William of Gloucester barracks until the review is complete?
Sadly, it is not just Capita that is missing deadlines; it is the Government, too. I raised a constituent’s case in ministerial correspondence in mid-February and received a response from the Parliamentary Secretary only on 30 June, four-and-a-half months later. My constituents want a swift solution. Given that the April deadline has been missed and the June deadline has been missed, what confidence can they or this House have that the August deadline will be hit?
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, and he has adopted the tone of the House, which is united on tackling this issue; but there is clearly a lacuna in the law as it stands. It will take time, however fast the Government work, to get that change on the statute books. In the interim, is the Minister prepared to use sanctions against Pakistan to ensure the deportation of this grievous individual?
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
I welcome the new Defence Secretary to Question Time, and simply pose a quick question to him, because we need some clarity about the Chagos deal. Will he confirm that it has been cancelled and that the money—the billions—that was going to Mauritius has now been transferred to defence spending?
Order. There is a lot of interest in this debate, so I am imposing an indicative time limit on speeches of four minutes, an exemplar of which will be Sir Gavin Williamson.
That was commendably brief, although not everyone will get in at this rate. I shall have to impose a three-and-a-half minute indicative time limit.
Order. I am calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at 6.58 pm—so do the maths, folks.
Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.
The Ministry of Defence said over the weekend that the action against HMS Prince of Wales was “unsafe and unprofessional”. Does the Secretary of State not agree that it is far more than that? It is provocative. Does he not further agree that Russia will take the next step, if this threat is not faced down? What action will we take to make it absolutely clear to the killer in the Kremlin that this sort of thing is simply not acceptable?
The Government are right to pursue this. Foreign interference in UK politics is a blight that needs to be dealt with, and the Government are right to commission Philip Rycroft to do the work. However, does the Minister not understand that the optics of failing to consult political parties across the House are not good? Whatever emerges has to command the respect of everyone, and although I am no apologist for the Reform party, this looks very much like something of a stitch-up, which does none of us any good.
Lords Blunkett and Herbert have done a good job, but I would counsel against introducing a new police rank when most large organisations are stripping ranks out and trying to compress their hierarchies. Does the Minister agree that the No. 1 thing that needs to be done is to improve the quality of top leadership? Their lordships made that point very clearly. In 1839, Captain Samuel Meredith of the Royal Navy was appointed as the first chief constable of Wiltshire. Will the Minister give some consideration to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) about allowing people from the armed forces and other uniformed services to aspire to top ranks within our police force? It would break down groupthink, and I think it would add a great deal—middle-grade senior people within the armed forces, in particular, would have a great deal to offer.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on the way in which he introduced this complex debate. Let me start by addressing the issue that prompted the petition that we are debating. Many of us will have heard of Councillor Robert Alden, the leader of the Conservative group in Birmingham, who called on voters to “help keep extremists out” of Birmingham city council. We have heard examples from a number of different parties of how, in response to a high-profile individual with a very serious conviction, there was a sense across the political system in that city that they would not welcome division into their local politics. Although some in the ward voted for that individual, the community exercised what I think most of us would respect as being good judgment. That leads to the broader question of how, particularly in local elections where turnout can be extremely low—sometimes as low as 20% at ward level—and in complicated politics with sometimes five or more political parties and a number of independent candidates, we ensure that people who wish to bring extremism into politics do not use those types of elections to leverage public office to pursue extremist aims. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) represents a community that has had to face and deal with some tensions, and he has led the response to that extremely effectively. He set out in his clear contribution that we need to ensure that in our politics and democracy—how we come together to collectively make the best decisions to support our communities and national interest—we do not see people seeking to leverage political office to create division. This debate comes at a time when there is a bigger picture when it comes to those seeking to import disputes from other parts of the world into our politics. All of us, as constituency MPs, deal with that on a daily basis. Sometimes there are heartfelt requests for the intervention of the British state. I recently met constituents who wanted to talk to me about access to reservoirs and water in Sri Lanka. They felt that people in their country would respect the intervention of the British Government and that it would produce a positive impact on something directly affecting the lives of their friends, family and relations in a community with which they, like Britain, have a strong connection. However, there are also those who seek to use British politics as a means of pursuing conflict and division, and clearly we do not welcome that. In considering cases like that of Shahid Butt, we know that Yemen is a country beset by terrible conflict and violence that have cost the lives of many thousands of innocent people. We do not want that conflict to be pursued either in Birmingham city council’s town hall or in any other part of our politics. The challenge for the Government, who currently hold the responsibility to address this issue, is how we strike the right balance when seeking to draw boundaries around who is eligible for public office in our country. We are a country that respects and cherishes freedom of speech, and we support the right to the freedom of religion and belief. We believe, and it is enshrined in our rules, that there should be a path to redemption and reconciliation for people who break the law or the norms of our society. However, as politics becomes an increasingly contested space, we need to ensure that we balance those principles with preserving the integrity of our politics. People could seek local office not to benefit the wider community but because they want a decision to be made in favour of a planning application, a grant from the council or the sale of a piece of land to the benefit of them and their associates. People could also seek election to this Parliament to try to change the policy of the British Government in respect of interventions in conflict, wars and disputes in other countries. None of those things is about the longer-term interests of the British people. Given the rising tide of antisemitism, which most of us will have heard about from our constituents—the Maccabi football team case in Birmingham was a classic example—we need to ensure that our governance and local ethics are free from the taint of extremism, wherever it may be found. The official Opposition support the Government in seeking to take forward their policies on this area. I reflect on what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) set out in respect of the complex history of Northern Ireland. It must be difficult for members of that community to find themselves face to face with people who are not only terrorists but may have been involved in the murder or harm of their own relatives. I have personally heard about that from Northern Ireland politicians. They have told me what it is like to sit in a council chamber knowing that somebody there was directly involved in the killing of someone very close to them, and trying to work out how to put that dispute behind them and move forward in the interests of the community, while not disrespecting the memory of those they loved.
The hon. Member has set out clearly, and I think boosted, the point about the complexity. She is absolutely right that we should not have a situation where someone feels that their election to office overrides their obligation to the basic good conduct and due process we expect of all politicians—the basic respect for human rights, the lives of other people and everything that makes this country strong. We need to make sure—I am sure the Minister will—that the Government reflect on the long-term lessons from Northern Ireland. This is not just about what Shahid Butt may have done in Yemen in 1999; it is about our experience as a country of terrorism influencing our politics and our communities, and about making sure those lessons are taken into account, so that we can be better protected for the future. The Opposition will support the Government in seeking to bring forward whatever policy changes are necessary, and some suggestions have been made in the debate about what those might look like. That could include a test specifically around convictions for terrorism or around crimes of violence that would impact on the suitability of someone for public office. It could include how we work with other countries to ensure that convictions abroad are captured through the nominations process, so that we know what people may have been convicted of and are able to make an effective appraisal of the soundness of that conviction—recognising that a conviction in Russia or China may not carry the same weight in the view of our politics as a conviction in France, Germany or Ireland. We pledge to work with the Government to seek to address this issue and make sure that all of our communities, for the long-term future, can have total confidence in the integrity of our political system.
12. What steps he is taking to support cadets.
Cadet centres such as the TS Pelican in Ruislip in my constituency are a vital part of our armed forces community, but given that the Government have decided to cut the funding that supports our cadet groups, can the Minister tell us what progress is being made with the private sector investment that the Government have said will backfill the consequences of those cuts?
The Minister set out for the House the robust accountability measures that he has in place. I appreciate that it is difficult for him to ensure that he gets the response he wants from Capita, but can he please ensure that when constituents of mine, like Keith Wyvill, contact their former employer, the Cabinet Office, they are not simply given the brush-off and told to raise the issue with Capita, but at least have set out for them the actions that the Government are taking?
Earlier this year, when I served on the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee, the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), assured us that funding for service housing was “ringfenced” and: “Nothing in the DIP process will stop us getting on with the job”. However, the defence investment plan cuts £300 million from the funding due to be spent in this Parliament, pushing that investment into the next. Can the Secretary of State tell the House exactly how many service family homes will now have their refurbishments or rebuild delayed into the 2030s because the Government have failed to honour that commitment? Can he confirm that that figure is 14,000 homes?
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), it is clear that this new piece of legislation could allow hostile states to set up shell charities or hide behind humanitarian cover. As a matter of purely operational wording, does the British state have the ability to actually identify whether that is happening and put a stop to it?
It is an honour to follow such an interesting speech about bricks. I congratulate Hayley and the other petitioners, the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for bringing this important issue into Parliament; it has been a really interesting debate. It is fair to say that the efforts of the petitioners have made sure that the concerns of workers, manufacturers, suppliers and the local communities that depend on the ceramics industry have truly been heard in Parliament. It is clear that the ceramics sector faces several existential pressures including, in particular, high energy costs, as well as burdensome regulation and rising labour costs. We have heard a range of valuable contributions from Members, and the importance of the industry, not just in Staffordshire but in many other parts of the UK, has truly come across. I was fascinated to hear about Scotland, Cornwall and Stroud, and about a number of businesses in the ceramics sector. It was very welcome to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who made a powerful contribution on behalf of a sector in which he has first-hand experience of working. We have learned that the ceramics industry is not simply another manufacturing sector. It is a source of highly skilled employment, a proud part of our industrial heritage and a significant contributor to our economy. For generations, the British ceramics industry has been recognised all around the world for its quality, craftsmanship and innovation, but it is clear that the industry faces particular challenges because it is particularly energy intensive. The high temperatures that kilns need mean that the industry cannot simply find, at short notice, alternative sources of energy, or switch on and off when prices fluctuate. The industry is uniquely exposed to very high energy costs, and the recent challenges facing some of its well-known firms should serve as a warning. The supercharger scheme is a sticking plaster on the damage that has been caused by the Energy Secretary’s net zero policies, which have driven up the cost of energy and piled that cost on to businesses. The net zero costs that the Government have imposed on businesses have meant that the Government were required to introduce a £120 million subsidy for the ceramics industry.
I will not give way, given how tight we are for time. I hope Members will welcome the fact that the Conservatives have a clear and credible plan to cut energy bills, reduce regulation and lower taxes. We have a cheap power plan that will cut household energy bills by £200 a year and cut electricity bills for businesses by 20%. That could save ceramics businesses a large amount of money. It would save the average restaurant £5,500 and the average pub £1,100. We would achieve that by axing the carbon tax in full, including the UK emissions trading scheme and carbon price support. We would also scrap the renewables obligation certificate scheme, which would free up money that is currently used to fund the payments through general taxation. We would back the North sea and get Britain drilling again, unlocking home-grown energy and generating an estimated £2.5 billion in additional tax revenues each year.
I am very tight for time, but if the hon. Gentleman insists.
It would mean we would have to import less from countries outside the UK because we would have our own supply. I do not want to intrude on arguments within the governing party, but I will call out the fact that it does not make sense to leave our own gas in the ground. The policies I have been outlining are precisely the ones that energy-intensive sectors such as ceramics have been calling for. If we are serious about protecting the British ceramics industry, we need to act now to cut the cost of industrial energy. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions. We have heard a bit about the challenge in respect of imports, so it would be interesting to hear from him what representations the industry has made to the Trade Remedies Authority. Will the Government support the cheap power plan that would cut business energy costs, and therefore abandon the ideological policies that are driving proud sectors such as ceramics into decline? The future of a great British industry, and all the livelihoods that it supports, are too important to ignore.
I want to ask the Minister about the auction price that the Energy Secretary set today for offshore wind, which I understand is £120 per megawatt-hour. That sounds very high to me.
I welcome the Minister for Veterans and People to his new role. He will be interested to know that my Gosport constituency has the highest proportion of veterans in the country. A lot of them are saying that Operation Valour has good intentions when it comes to improving visibility and triaging access to care services, but it does not invest in services like housing and healthcare. The new Conservative administration that has just taken over Gosport borough council has inherited a 541-strong waiting list for council houses, and the NHS waiting list for treatment has gone up by 17,000 across Hampshire, this year alone. What will stop Op Valour being more than just window-dressing? How will it invest in the services that our veterans rely on?
T2. My constituent Clint is a veteran who suffered blast-related traumatic brain injuries during his service. Clint and his partner, Carol, are campaigning to get the MOD to recognise such injuries and provide more support to veterans. What is the Minister doing to address this issue, and will he please meet me to discuss how services across Government can be more joined up to support constituents such as Clint and veterans up and down the country?
Capita’s failures have caused significant hardship to retiring civil servants across the country. The Minister is right that the immediate priority should be to resolve the hardship caused to our constituents. Looking forward, it is also important that the Government—and I mean all Governments, not just this one—get much better at managing and overseeing third-party contracts, to prevent this and similar issues from happening in the future. Time and again on the Public Accounts Committee, we assess departmental oversight of third-party contracts; the commercial management is, frankly, not good enough. Will the Minister outline what the Cabinet Office is doing to improve commercial management throughout the whole of Government?
The defence investment plan is split into two parts: the near-term investment plan, which covers the four remaining years of this Parliament, and the long-term investment plan, which covers the following five years, up to 2035. This is a 10-year plan, but that clearly only adds up to nine years—the plan should also cover up to the 2035-36 financial year. Will the Minister confirm that it is a 10-year plan and, if it is, whether the final part of the plan assumes that we are already spending 3.5% on defence?
Earlier this year I asked the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box about the case of Fabian Henry, a child rapist who was removed from a deportation flight in 2021 after the Home Secretary herself, then in opposition, signed a letter calling for the removal of people from that flight. Last October, I also asked the Minister for an update on Fabian Henry and whether he was still in the country, and he refused to tell me based on the fact that the Home Office does not comment on individual cases. Given that Fabian Henry could be removed from the country under current legislation in the UK Borders Act 2007, what confidence should any of us or any of the victims of Shabir Ahmed have that the Government are going to change the law in order to facilitate his deportation?