Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,575 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
<Question HRSContentId="{56B77845-4BA4-41EE-993F-81694678B042}">9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{03BF5E8D-BF64-4751-8F74-030D9A2AF3AE}">What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the DVLA’s performance levels. </QuestionText></Question>
An increasing number of constituents are coming to me with problems getting their licence. One example was a lady who had dementia; she passed all the tests but had months of delays trying to get her licence, eventually having to take her complaint to the chief executive to get an answer, only for the licence to be backdated, meaning she will have to go through the whole rigmarole again in a few months’ time. That is not an isolated case. I have constituents with diabetes and epilepsy, who are all suffering. What is the Minister doing to ensure we can speed the process up so that people can get back on the road as soon as they are medically fit?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
We heard from the Conservative Front Bench that we do not meet the criteria to rejoin the EU. How do the Lib Dems suggest that we get around that problem?
£35 per person, if they are eligible.
The hon. Gentleman is talking about doing everything that we can. One way to bring in some funding is through gas and oil tax receipts. Page 94 of the Office for Budget Responsibility report explicitly says that Rosebank is baked in as being granted. Does he support Rosebank?
I had to check that the Chancellor had said what I thought he had, and it was referred to again today by the Defence Secretary. They said that this is the first 100 days of a Government, with a new 10-year plan. By my calculation, the Government have been in for 847 days, with their third Budget being delivered yesterday, and we are over a quarter of the way through the last 10-year plan. Rather than this being a baby Budget and a fledgling Government, they are more an adolescent Government, and this really is a bum-fluff Budget. It has got wispy bits and patchy bits, but no one really knows what they are, where they are going or even if they should be there. We can see that by the fact that we have 98 announcements within the Budget, which is a record, but the value per project is one of the lowest on record. When I saw the Budget, I was pleased that there were some bits that I have been working on that have finally come to fruition. First, pensioners are being taken out of paying tax on their state pension. There is also the freeze on fuel duty. Those are in response to things that were warned about, but put in by a Labour Government. The hole was dug by a Labour Government, and they have now had to half-fill it. That is exactly what we see with the NEETs situation. We have record unemployment of young people, certainly when compared with the EU average, with more than a million people not able to get through into jobs, so what do the Government do? They put on that <span id="530" class="column-number" data-column-number="530"></span>toxic concoction of tax increases and red tape, and now they turn around and say, “We will give you £3,000 to take someone on.” The Government should get out the way. It would be far simpler to let businesses take on people and grow as they need. The same applies to the hospitality industry and the leisure industry. It is welcome that the Government have made some changes to their rates, but we should remember that the Government took away the support in the first place, put up the rates and added the toxic concoction on top. It is a hole that has been half-filled, and we see that time and again. We often hear about the money that went into the NHS, but we should remember it was taken away with the jobs tax that hit hospices, care homes, GPs and pharmacies, which are all feeling it. With energy, £100 has been given, but we know that Ofgem says the cap will see a more than £400 increase. We should remember that Labour promised £300 lower bills when it came into office. I hope that we see this beard grow into a full bushy shape. Whether it is Keir Starmer’s continuation or Andy Burnham’s new direction—
Forgive me. I mean the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and his new direction, with a lovely new moustache.
Does my right hon. Friend believe that the reason they cannot be here is that their prayer cards were taken out?
Talking about structural problems and difficulties, a press release has just come out from the Labour party that says: “Exclusive. Chancellor tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy that Labour will not bring welfare bills down in this Parliament”. Does the Minister stand by that?
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{BB43BE6E-C42C-449E-9D6B-CA258205E46B}"> </QNum></strong> Mr Whelan, we heard from the previous panel about the potential to offer discounts to local residents. Does M6 toll do that at present? How would that work?<span id="20" class="column-number" data-column-number="20"></span> <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> We have done that. About two and a half years ago we put in place a new toll system—we spent £20 million on it—and that enabled us to introduce new toll pricing. We reduced prices for locals to £4, and we have held that there for the two and a half years. We have not increased it. That is something we are conscious of and have actively looked at, as well as having new products, some with discounts and some without. Interestingly, the account product that does not have a discount is our most popular one.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{03F7364F-793C-4838-A6AD-FC96AC8D2C70}"> </QNum></strong> Which one is that? <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> The Lite account.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{315490A8-E145-4D01-A324-8F6421A5B142}"> </QNum></strong> What does that do? <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> It provides an easier way to get a receipt. It also provides the ability to drive through what we call our breeze lanes, on which the gates will open automatically if your account is in good status.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{873A7891-A7BE-4671-A14C-CAAEFE1BB63A}"> </QNum></strong> Mr Garratt, you mentioned that you would like ministerial assurance that the Bill will not be used more widely across the rest of the country. Is ministerial assurance enough, or would you like to see something in the Bill to ensure that it is not a Trojan horse, as the Minister says it will not be? <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> Our sense is that the way in which the Bill is drafted is relatively strong. That is why we are seeking assurances on the record, rather than amendments. We do not want it to be used as a Trojan horse to spread this across the country, but there is a particular case for it on this particular route. Given the wording at the moment, to have assurances would be proportionate.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{869FFEE8-7AEF-4486-8A7B-4F455485C558}"> </QNum></strong> We have heard that moving to a smart motorway and using the hard shoulder could increase capacity, meaning that tolls could be charged. <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> Again, it would be good to get an assurance that that will not be the case, but that is not our reading of the Bill at the moment. That does not mean that others could not interpret it differently at some point, when looking at it in the future. That is why we are seeking a strong assurance that this is about adding actual new trunk road capacity and not doing things like what you just said.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{AB901A24-1CAA-47BA-9559-6EBCB660CC8D}"> </QNum></strong> Mr Pang, do you have any concerns? <em><strong>Declan Pang:</strong></em> We are concerned about how the Bill could be applied to introduce tolls. We want greater reassurances from the Department about that. Clause 81 in particular gives the Secretary of State the power to direct any road to be made a trunk road, so we are concerned about what could be brought into scope. We want greater reassurances.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{CE9D449B-78F3-4804-B120-A01AD813070F}"> </QNum></strong> We heard from an earlier panel that the operator has limited incentives for cost control and that there is a risk of taking “costs off the book without any level of scrutiny.” Do you understand what they are talking about in that? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> I think “without any level of scrutiny” is something I would take issue with, certainly as I would see the arrangements working. We have had good discussions with old colleagues of mine at Ofwat about the arrangements they had, for example, for the Thames tideway tunnel. There, both the rhythm—by which I mean the frequency of reporting, monitoring and scrutiny of costs during construction—and the importance of having a dependable, expert, independent technical assurer on the costs are really important for making sure you have that right level of visibility and scrutiny. I would question the nature of unchecked costs. I am not denying that cost pressures would arise, but that is the whole point of having arrangements like an independent technical assessor.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{62BA81A3-8AC9-4226-AE43-F4EDB9157FAD}"> </QNum></strong> Is it true that there are limited incentives for cost control? What is the incentive for the operator to keep the costs down? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> I will go to both costs and schedule. There are instruments that you can bring in through a licence—such as cost-sharing rates. The point I was trying to make earlier is that you do not necessarily design a price control—at the moment, if there is a cost shock, it just goes through to end-user prices, so cost-sharing arrangements are one example. You can also bring in thresholds to make sure that the company is incentivised to remain on schedule as well.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{78111477-0441-4D0A-AF19-B1697F1BDD48}"> </QNum></strong> If an operator in future was not making any money and was going under, who would step in? Would it be you? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> Before we get to that point, it is worth bearing in mind whether there are other potential investors willing to buy out the company that is struggling. There may be particular reasons why—maybe it was not well managed or well financed. There is the potential in principle for someone to come in through normal mergers or acquisitions and take responsibility. In the event that the company is really struggling against a particular settlement, that is a challenge for a regulator to manage. There are certain provisions on the limit, where things ultimately are pushed to the point of non-recoverability, which are envisaged within the Bill. One of the jobs of the regulator is, first, getting that first price control settlement right. As I say, at the moment that is being set by the Department, but getting that projection on the allowed cost is key—get it right at the start. Then, that rhythm of regular monitoring is really important to make sure that you anticipate that point. What you do not want to be doing, particularly with a construction project like this, is to get to that point with some element of surprise. What you need to do is keep that regular rhythm of monitoring and scrutiny, so that you can act before you get to that point that the company has nowhere to go.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{04343CE7-7C19-497F-9ADB-DD359EAB0DC4}"> </QNum></strong> I guess you could step in and increase the costs and have them earning more to try to keep them on a sustainable footing.<span id="46" class="column-number" data-column-number="46"></span> <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> At certain points it is possible that a regulator could introduce things like cost limits, beyond which there was then a redetermination of a price allowance, but not necessarily one that was a simple “costs have overrun by CX, therefore tolls increase by the same amount.” It would not be an automatic pass-through; it would be subject to that efficiency and economy test.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{5DF0C166-6A83-4CAD-8315-906076F6CA2C}"> </QNum></strong> Andrew, I think you said earlier that one of the issues was uncapped cost overruns for the contractor. What is the consequence of that? Does it scare some contractors away? <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> Not for the contractor; for the investor. Sorry—if I said “contractor”, I meant “investor”. Apologies. I do not care about the contractors. <em>[</em><em>Laughter.</em><em>]</em><span id="54" class="column-number" data-column-number="54"></span> It is not because we do not understand and price risk; that is what we do for a living. It is just that I cannot go to my investment committee and, when asked, “Okay, Andrew, what is the maximum amount of equity you are going to put into this project and therefore what is the return you are expecting to get on it?”, give the answer, “I don’t know.” That is not a conversation—well, it could be a conversation, but it would be the last conversation I have with my investment committee.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{1835AE8C-A454-4BEE-A206-DDC50F4812EA}"> </QNum></strong> What do we need to do to change that? <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> Again, I am getting well over my skis, so apologies, but it is about being smart. I am not just suggesting that this all lands on the country balance sheet, whether it is the National Wealth Fund taking excess risk above a certain threshold and therefore becoming an equity investor as a consequence, but it would be sensible to be smart and think innovatively about how to cap the number, so that I can then go to my investment committee and say, “This is the amount of capital we’ll commit, with any excess being provided by somebody else in exchange for an economic interest.” Rather than trying to give answers, I would say that being thoughtful and innovative about how that cap can be constructed is definitely worth putting on the agenda.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{F1B0C1ED-A38F-4387-BBFC-0EBB57317AC4}"> </QNum></strong> But it does not drive away investors as it is just now, does it? <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> I think it will.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{FA40C80E-D69A-4996-A716-930B6D4E1A6C}"> </QNum></strong> Okay—so it is something we need to look at urgently. <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> I cannot speak for the entire investment community, but I can repeat what I said earlier. I think we are fairly typical—I mean, we are brilliant, but we are fairly typical—and an uncapped equity commitment is almost impossible for us to write.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{4B11EA99-5B5F-47AE-8F11-037A1229C73E}"> </QNum></strong> Minister, we heard from the last person who gave evidence, the investor, that he would not be able to invest because of the uncapped cost overrun risks. You heard that as well. Would you look at it again to make changes to ensure investors are not so scared away by that risk? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> I am not too familiar with the factors he takes into account when investing, but my advice from officials is that the soft market testing that has been taking place has shown a lot of interest in this. He also said in his response that there would be quite a lot of people who would be looking to invest in this. That conversation is ongoing. Having the legislation on the statute book will actually help give more certainty to investors. Clearly one of the reasons why the project has already started is to de-risk it to some extent. All the indicators I am getting are that we are putting this in a strong position to attract investment.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{436DAE4C-370F-41E1-9BFD-BB093B211BA0}"> </QNum></strong> Will you not make any changes after hearing the comments today? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> I do not think that this is covered by the Bill anyway, but I will certainly take it away to see if there is anything to reflect on. I assure you that this would not be proceeding if there were no interest in investment.
May I just put it on the record that the Tour de France will be passing through my constituency twice?<span id="419" class="column-number" data-column-number="419"></span> Will the Secretary of State investigate the position on Kirkconnel station in my constituency, on the Nith valley line? Kirkconnel is a former mining community with an older population, and many people are unable to use the station because of infirmity or poor mobility.
I do not know whether you or the Leader of the House are cinemagoers, Mr Speaker, but this weekend you could visit the Lonsdale cinema in Annan for its range of Halloween films, including a 30th anniversary screening of “Scream”. I commend Alan Towers, the proprietor of the cinema, on the fact that Lonsdale has been nominated as Cinema of the Year at the British Independent Film Awards, and further commend Alan and his team for keeping the cinema going through sometimes difficult times and providing a much-valued entertainment service for people across the south of Scotland and beyond.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec, and to be speaking on behalf of the official Opposition in this debate called by everybody’s friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—the Member of Parliament above all others for whom the term “indefatigable” could have been coined. It is a very important debate, and I commend him on the clarity of the three asks that he has put to the Government; we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. On an average day, air ambulances undertake 137 missions. We have heard in the debate about the great work of air ambulances across the country. The hon. Member specifically mentioned their work at Strangford lough at the end of the Ards peninsula. It is a part of the world that he knows I know well and is a very good illustration of the importance of being able to move people quickly when the roads are slow to pass. In my constituency of East Hampshire, we are very lucky to have a fantastic team at the Hampshire and Isle of Wight air ambulance, which can reach almost anyone in Hampshire or on the island within 10 minutes from take-off from its new airbase and headquarters at Southampton airport. They have flown 907 missions so far this year. In the single month of August, their doctors, pilots and paramedics responded to 250 missions. During the August bank holiday weekend, the teams were deployed eight times a day on average, coming to the rescue in the aftermath of car crashes, cardiac arrests and accidental injuries. I know all Members join me in commending the work and generosity of air ambulance charities and their supporters. The supporters are very important. As a number of colleagues have mentioned, air ambulances are not part of the national health service; they are charities. Yet, as the hon. Member for Strangford highlighted, most people do not know that they are independent from the NHS. I hope that this debate plays a part in addressing that lack of awareness. Fundraising is a vital activity for air ambulances. It costs the Hampshire and Isle of Wight service £17,750 a day to keep their vital service operational. They are particularly creative fundraisers—from the clothes recycling points and the charity lottery to “brew for the crew” coffee mornings and the “dash in the dark” and many corporate and commemorative fundraising initiatives. I commend everyone involved with the Hampshire service and with air ambulance charities right across the country for their amazing—indeed, in many cases, lifesaving—efforts. In code red cases, where there is a medical emergency such as cardiac arrest or internal haemorrhaging, the minutes saved by air ambulances can really make the difference between life and death. When a patient has suffered skeletal head, chest or abdominal injuries and local hospital facilities are not sufficient, air ambulances can fly the injured to major trauma centres that would take a long time to reach by road. Of course, for this to work, hospitals need suitable helipads for crews to take off and land, and here lies the issue that we are discussing today. Research from the all-party parliamentary group for air ambulances—I thank those who support that group, some of whom are with us today—highlights that access to safeguarded on-site hospital helipads is inconsistent <span id="234WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="234WH"></span>across the country. More than a third lack either 24/7 access or an operational helipad. When helicopter transfers are not possible, it then costs hundreds of pounds in secondary ambulance transfers, with delays to care leading to longer hospital stays and more intensive treatment. In 2019, Health Ministers allocated £10 million to nine ambulance charities supporting air ambulance services to move towards 24/7 operations and improve seven airbase facilities. During the pandemic, we provided £6 million of emergency funding to air ambulance charities to help them with the pressures they were then facing. Members often speak about postcode lotteries and it is a phrase that has come up again today. Given the nature of the incidents that air ambulances respond to, patchwork coverage really can make the difference between life and death. It is one of the most sharply important postcode lotteries to address. Since taking office, what have the Government done to reduce unwarranted variation in emergency care by place? Specifically, what are they doing to provide the reliable infrastructure that air ambulances need? A written question was posed to the Minister in the other place asking whether the Government had considered a contingency fund to secure future helipad provision. The response was that a fund was not under consideration and NHS organisations must consider competing priorities within available resources. Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care underspent its capital departmental expenditure limit by some hundreds of millions of pounds in the last financial year? Was any of the underspend considered for helipad projects? We talk about prioritising within available resources, but overall, people working in the health service note that available resources are reducing. Integrated care boards are pencilling in cuts to services and NHS trusts are planning to axe many jobs. Yesterday’s Budget deepened the cuts to the NHS to around £1 billion of capital cuts over the next four years. Can the Minister tell us what the impact of that will be? Which programmes will be cut and, specifically on the subject of this debate, what are the implications for helipad capital? To ensure that no good deed goes unpunished, this Government decided to reward air ambulance charities with a new jobs tax. For every employee on average earnings, air ambulance charities, alongside others of course, must pay an extra £900 to HMRC. Is the Minister willing to raise the plight of air ambulances with Treasury Ministers? Does she think it is wrong that money that has effectively come from charitable donations should have to be diverted to help pay for the cost of the previous Chancellor’s mismanagement of the public finances? As colleagues have noted, air ambulances are also suffering the consequences of soaring energy prices. The cost of aviation fuel surged more than 80% this spring, adding tens of thousands of pounds to air ambulance charities’ annual fuel bills. Earlier this summer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) wrote to the Government asking Ministers to ensure that air ambulances are included in fuel resilience planning and recognised in NHS emergency services fuel access arrangements. Can the Minister update Members on actions taken by her Department since receiving that correspondence?<span id="235WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="235WH"></span> The Government rightly have high ambitions for the health service: reduced ambulance times, shorter hospital waits, faster discharges. We of course share those ambitions, but there is a huge gulf between where the NHS is now on some of those key performance indicators and where we all want it to be. The National Audit Office estimates that 1.2 million patients waited between 12 and 24 hours in A&E last year. NHS waiting lists have been climbing, with the number of trauma and orthopaedic cases with a decision to admit higher than at the time of the change of Government. Charities providing critical medical transport are having to cope with the weight of the extra taxes from the Government on top of those pressures from high energy prices. In this debate, Members from across the House have called on the Government to act by putting forward a clear framework and road map for hospital helipads, establishing clear standards for NHS estates and exploring options for financial support so air ambulances can afford to stay in the air and keep saving lives. Again, I commend the hon. Member for Strangford for the clarity with which he set out his three asks. I urge the Minister to listen to air ambulance charities, their supporters and all those who are delivering high-quality emergency care. We look forward to her response.
The Government are very good at imposing on people things that they do not want. In Staffordshire Moorlands, the Government want to impose the end of Staffordshire Moorlands district and the end of Staffordshire police—reorganisations that will have different timeframes and will lead to great confusion. Will the Minister consider my proposal for local government reorganisation—this has been my proposal all along—which is to leave our councils and local authorities in the state they are in? The Government can give us a mayor, if that is what they want, but we really do not need any more distractions for our local government officials, who need to get on and deliver services.
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) in paying tribute to Sue Holt. I was in Strasbourg with her only a few weeks ago when she was taken ill. It was a great shock to all of us to learn what had happened to her. I want to cover measures in the Budget that relate to my constituents, the Home Affairs Committee and my constituency, but I realise I have limited time so I will race ahead. It is pretty quick on the Home Affairs Committee side of things, because there was not very much in the Budget about such matters. In fact, there was only one mention in the speech: £15 million over three years for a misogyny prevention fund. We are yet to see what that actually involves, but I worry that priority is being given to perpetrators. Where is the money for victims? A victim-centred approach to violence against women and girls is essential. The Government have already said that £1 billion needs to be spent on tackling violence against women and girls during the life of the strategy, but the Red Book states: “the government is prioritising £55 million of funding over two years to accelerate delivery of the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy.” Again, £55 million out of £1 billion does not sound too much. On issues that were not mentioned but relate to home affairs, the Committee is conducting two inquiries at the moment. I am interested in the work that the Government are doing on apprenticeships and so on, but I urge them to look at the work the Committee did with Demos—a piece of deliberative democracy—looking at the public’s attitude to work-based immigration. They will find really interesting insights on the need to prioritise upskilling UK workers to take job vacancies, not just looking overseas to fill those roles. The Committee is also doing to a piece of work on the impact of serious and organised crime on local neighbourhoods. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made some really interesting comments about the high street. It is the case that we have seen the hollowing out of the high street, and the measures that the Government have taken on national insurance, business rates and so on have left a vacuum that is being filled by <span id="522" class="column-number" data-column-number="522"></span>organised criminality. That is filling our high streets in a way that is inappropriate and that we do not want, so I urge the Government to deal with that issue. Moving on to issues that affect my constituency, I welcome the £100 for A to D council tax payers. We have a disproportionately high number of properties in bands A to D in Staffordshire Moorlands, so more people will be affected by that than in some other constituencies. However, there was nothing in the Budget for those who rely on heating oil, and they will not benefit from the abolition of gas standing charges. Those people really do need help; the price of heating oil is hideous and, as we come into winter, the numbers that have been quoted to fill a tank of heating oil are astonishing. Again, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon in commenting that there was nothing about hospitality and tourism. As the Member of Parliament for Alton Towers and other great local attractions, including the Peak Wildlife Park, I know how much they welcomed the reduction in VAT over the summer and how much they want to see that made permanent. There was also nothing for farmers in the Budget. It would have been very heartening if the Chancellor had mentioned something about the family farm tax, to give farmers the respite that they need. The Government tell us we need to have local government reorganisation in order to benefit from many of the measures in the Budget. As I said following the Minister for Local Government’s statement earlier, if we are going to have a mayor, we do not need to reorganise the structure of our local government as well. Let officials and councillors spend their time and effort on delivering services and let the mayors have the strategic overview. That would be a much better approach. The Peak Cluster project proposes to enable the cement industry to continue in the Peak district through carbon capture, with plans to transport the carbon to Morecambe bay. This is of great concern. How much carbon is going to be emitted in building the pipelines that will go underneath the Peak district, Cheshire and other areas to get out to Morecambe bay, where the carbon can be put into an empty gas field? Surely, it would just be better to allow the cement industry to continue producing cement in as clean a way as possible in the United Kingdom, without the need to build the pipeline, with all the environmental damage that will cause. I welcome the comments around new battery storage, and solar farms needing to be connected to the grid to start with. That is a measure that many of my constituents will welcome.
I did not think that the Minister could make things for people in Worcestershire even more confusing than they were. They just want their bins taken out, their roads maintained, enough school places, adult social care provision and a say in planning. But now I understand that we will have to get councillors elected to district councils again next May, that we will have to get councillors elected to a new shadow authority the following May, and that this new entity in the south of Worcestershire will now not be created until 2029. I just cannot see how that is going to benefit my residents.
I am sure both you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House will share my delight at the news that the Seabirds pub in Bridlington has reopened following a £300,000 refurbishment. It coincides with my “Pub of the Year” competition in Bridlington and The Wolds, where we are delighted to be home to 114 pubs. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking every landlord and landlady across the country for all their hard work and <span id="454" class="column-number" data-column-number="454"></span>everything that they do for local communities? After my competition has closed on Saturday, will the Leader of the House join me for a pint in the winning pub?
Fiscal responsibility means living within our means. Every household across East Yorkshire and up and down the country knows that we cannot spend more on the family credit card than we earn, racking up debt with <span id="506" class="column-number" data-column-number="506"></span>little more than the hope of a future pay rise, yet that is exactly what this Government are doing with our country’s credit card—a credit card taken out in my constituents’ names. After Labour crashed the economy in 2008, it left a deficit of 10%. It was spending 10%—£160 billion—more on the country’s credit card each year than our country earned. Only the Conservatives’ fiscal responsibility was able to fix Labour’s mess and steadily wrestle that deficit down. Even after the exceptional need to support jobs and businesses through the global pandemic and the Ukraine war, that deficit rose to 4.4%—less than half of the legacy left by Labour in 2010. Here we are again, with Labour’s fiscal irresponsibility and no plan to deal with the deficit. Labour is borrowing £308 billion more than the plan it inherited in 2024. Under this Government, the national debt has surged through the £3 trillion mark for the first time ever. This spending cannot go on. This Government need to get borrowing down, they need to get public spending down, they need to get welfare spending down, and they need to get people’s taxes down. Next year the tax burden will reach a historic high of 37.9% of GDP under this Government, and it is set to surge from there. Where is this money going? I would like to address briefly some of the issues around the mismanagement of public money in the civil service. This Government, to their credit, pledged to reduce the size of the civil service, but I have bad news: the headcount has risen by 11,000 people since they took office. Cutting the civil service headcount is not this Government’s only broken promise. Last year, they put out a press release promising that they would instruct civil servants to stop what Labour themselves called “wasteful spending”—namely, banning Government-branded merchandise and away days in externally hired venues, rather than using freely available Government buildings. However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spent £20,000 on an away day at the Cumberland hotel in March. In the same month, the DCMS spent £2,000 on an away day at the British Museum. The following month, in April 2026, the Cabinet Office spent over £33,000 hiring the Hartwell House luxury hotel and spa, and its swanky restaurant with a 20-page wine list, for another retreat for its top tier of civil servants. I am slightly confused that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), admitted that in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), because when I asked the question, I got the response: “In the calendar year 2026, the Cabinet Office has not held any departmental Senior Civil Service away days.” The Crown Prosecution Service spent £37,000 on an away day at the four-star Manchester Marriott hotel. The Department for Transport managed to spend £9,000 on an away day at the Foreign Office and £14,000 on one at the HS2 offices. The Northern Ireland Office spent £4,000 meeting in a castle. The Department for Education held an away day for £27,000 at a grade II listed building in Sheffield, while the Ministry of Justice spent another £34,000 on an away day at a theatre. The Treasury—which we might hope would be holding the purse strings a little tighter—held two away days, with one at the British Museum, and spent £25,000 <span id="507" class="column-number" data-column-number="507"></span>“excluding VAT”. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero held three offsite away days, two at four-star hotels, costing a total of over £50,000. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade also spent £50,000 on three, including one at the Emirates stadium because no “alternative venues were available.” The MOD and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office could not tell me whether they had had any away days, as it would cost them too much to answer the question, so I dread to think how many away days they have had! Unfortunately, the Minister for Women and Equalities has not even bothered to reply to me, so I assume her staff have got lost on an away day to a nice spa hotel. The list goes on and on, but let me turn to merchandise. The Cabinet Office—which banned all of this—alone spent £4,500 on T-shirts, stickers and commemorative coins. I could move on to No. 10 North, but as we know, it is nothing more than a vanity project. In conclusion, it is time to bring back common sense and fiscal responsibility. Taxes are at a record high, growth is down, borrowing is higher, debt is up and living standards are down. We cannot keep spending more on the country’s credit card than we earn. Wealth must be created before it can be distributed, by our businesses, our entrepreneurs and those who go to work every day. There is no such thing as Government money; it is taxpayers’ money, and Labour is addicted to spending other people’s money, not creating it. We Conservatives want to see Britain richer, more prosperous and thriving. To paraphrase the excellent point made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, our country is overspent, overborrowed, overtaxed and drowning in an out-of-control welfare system—what a pickle we are in.
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to refer to the Prime Minister by name.
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know full well that it is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure those on the Treasury Bench have heard his point.
Order. Mr Francois, we refer to him as the Chancellor, not by his name.
Before I call the hon. Member to continue, I would just like to say what a pleasure it is to see the Clerk of the House at the Table for his last ever Adjournment debate.
I was overseas when the tributes to the Clerk of the House were made last week, so I would just like to correct the Minister: the Clerk of the House cannot be very long serving, because he is clearly an incredibly young man and far too young to retire. I add my thanks to him for all the support and help he has given me in this role. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em>