Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Does my hon. Friend recall that when the Labour party announced its early release system, it said words to the effect of those who have been imprisoned for the most serious and heinous crimes would not be covered by the early release scheme? Does it not seem extraordinary that rapists and those who have committed serious sexual assaults are in fact eligible for this early release scheme?
On prevention being better than cure, would the Minister care to comment upon the reduction in provision of prison education before she concludes her remarks?
The hon. Gentleman, who is a diligent and sensible Minister, will understand the deep disappointment in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield that the Ramada hotel on Penns Lane was not included in the recent list of closures, not least because it was on the list before the general election. He was very generous with his time in seeing me and listening to why that location is totally inappropriate in Sutton Coldfield. Can he reassure me that the facility will now be closed as soon as possible?
Linton-on-Ouse, in the heart of my constituency, is a small rural community and is very much isolated. Four years ago, this plan was rejected on technical grounds. Three times the local population would be put into the area, with no means to secure people within that site. They could roam into the village, which has no amenities and does not have a village shop. The area would be overwhelmed. I wanted to question the Minister on Thursday, but it was not possible. I have had many constituents ask some of these questions over the weekend, and I would like the Minister to answer them now. Northern Powergrid previously indicated that the system would not be able to cope and that the electrical upgrade needed for supply was not possible. Does that mean that industrial generators will have to be brought in, creating noise pollution in this quiet rural village? Yorkshire Water spent millions of pounds upgrading the sewage works to ensure that it correctly met effluent discharge requirements, based on a threefold increase in the area’s population under the proposal, so will there have to be effluent trucks, or would the water drains be polluted? On that note, people who closed down the Linton-on-Ouse base tell me that the drains were concreted in at the time. The Minister has said that some of these sites have already been vetted, but I find that hard to believe, when the issues on the base have not changed. The highway network has bridges limited to seven and a half tonnes, so site traffic will have to go through limited road routes. On healthcare, the local NHS says that it has no spare capacity. What is perhaps more worrying is that I have been told on good authority that local companies have been asked to tender for the work that would be needed at this site. I ask the Minister directly: have local companies been contacted to tender for work? If they have, I wonder whether it is a feasibility study. On that note, who will make the planning decisions? Will that be for North Yorkshire council, or will it be overridden? To call it a plan is too grand. The Government do not know what they are doing. They have not thought it through, and they have not had the decency to consult local people about it. In the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in 2022, this “tells you just about everything you need to know about the state of chaos they are in.” This is happening under his watch, so what has changed? This is still an inappropriate site, given those technical issues.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am also a member. Cancer is an issue that touches most of us, nearly every single day. No doubt we will all have had a friend or family member with cancer, and I am grateful that this petition has given us the opportunity to debate such an important issue. This is an extremely poignant debate for me, as I lost two friends to cancer at the end of last year: Russell Brown, who served the Worth Valley as a district councillor on Bradford council, and Chris Graham, a former Keighley town councillor who served the Longley and Parkwood wards. Their recent losses are still felt very much across the communities that I am lucky enough to represent. We have rightly had several recent opportunities to debate the issue of cancer, but today’s debate is particularly important, as breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women in the United Kingdom and the second most common cancer overall, with around 60,000 new cases and 11,200 deaths each year. That equates to about 31 deaths every single day, which is far too many. This important petition calls for early diagnosis, which is crucial. According to Cancer Research UK, 76.6% of women survive for 10 years or more after being diagnosed, and 85% of those are diagnosed at an early stage. I agree with the petition, and I thank Gemma Reeves for starting it, as well all those who kindly put their name to it, including from across my constituency. It is right to call for early screening at the age of 40. There is compelling evidence that early detection saves lives. Breast cancers identified at an early stage are genuinely smaller and less likely to have spread, and they require less aggressive treatment. Early diagnosis and early screening are key. Early diagnosis can not only improve survival rates, but it reduces the physical and psychological burden associated with advanced diagnosis and the disease spreading. It is equally important, however, to acknowledge that screening for breast cancer is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Screening for younger women generally produces less accurate mammograms because the tissue is denser, making cancers more difficult to detect and increasing the risk of false positives, but it should still happen. I repeat the petitioners’ call for early diagnosis. It is incredibly important. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 36. She has been through chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery, and I am pleased to say that she is on the mend, but that is another example of someone being diagnosed before the age of 40. If there is an historical family association with breast cancer, those under 40 should have the opportunity for early diagnosis. I agree with the petitioners that having a repeat opportunity of screening for annual check-ups rather than every three years is important. Access to screening is not just about age; it is about ensuring that those who are eligible for screening are aware of it and choose to take part. I have major concerns about the lack of uptake across certain groups. There is 81% uptake for breast cancer screening in the least deprived areas, compared with 56% in the most deprived areas. I know that the Minister cares deeply about the issue and I commend her for her work on it; the cause is close to her heart. I would be keen to understand from her how the Government are looking to tackle that discrepancy. I would also like to understand whether there is a plan to roll out an annual screening programme rather than just a three yearly one. Ultimately, I know that all hon. Members participating in the debate share the objectives of reducing deaths from breast cancer and ensuring that women receive the best possible care, but they cannot be achieved without a fully funded long-term workforce plan, alongside a clear, funded milestone to show how and when patients will see improvement. I put on record my thanks to the volunteers, campaigners and professionals, including the mobile cancer screening units that operate in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley as part of the Airedale hospital team, for their incredible and tireless work to help and support patients. I would like to understand whether the petition’s aims are part of the Government’s ambitions under their 10-year health plan. This poignant petition asks the Government for the right things, and, given the amount of correspondence I have received from petitioners and residents across my constituency, it has my backing.
I want a bit of clarity from the Minister, because the petitioners are calling on the Government to lower the age at which women are first called for breast cancer screening to 40 and to roll out screening on an annual basis rather than every three years. I know that they are not intending to do that, because we have seen the written response from them in advance of the debate, but what further evidence do the Government need to be able to achieve what the petitioners are asking?
I welcome the news that Keighley and Bradford is finally getting an independent grooming gangs inquiry. It has been a long fight, but for survivors like Fiona Goddard, who I spoke to again last night, the news has been bittersweet. The fact that Fiona and many other victims and survivors of the most horrific sexual violence have been written to by the Government to inform them that the very rapists and paedophiles convicted of abusing them could be released as early as September is an absolute disgrace. Fiona’s life has been turned upside down, and she and many others live in fear right now, and they also fear being retraumatised by a system that is diminishing the horrors that happened to them. I ask the Minister directly: will he guarantee now from the Dispatch Box that Fiona’s perpetrators will not be released early?
My local businesses such as Labman in Stokesley, Barkers and Sam Turner & Sons in Northallerton, and Metcalfe Farms in Leyburn are all excellent at providing opportunity for young people through apprenticeships. I note that the Government have introduced a welcome hiring incentive for the smallest businesses to take on young people, so will the Secretary of State congratulate my local businesses that are doing just that? Will the Government learn lessons from the kickstart scheme, which I believe the guarantee is somewhat modelled on, because we discovered that it is better to have an easy application process for the smallest businesses, to speed uptake and to ensure that they are aware of such initiatives? Such schemes are very beneficial, but we must ensure that businesses are aware of them and take them up to benefit young people.
I am not surprised that Labour Ministers and Back Benchers are patting themselves on the back for their youth guarantee, but it is a sticking plaster solution to a problem of their own creation. Rather than U-turn on their triple whammy of increased business costs, higher national insurance, higher wages and higher business rates, the Government would rather use the state to subsidise jobs for the same young people who businesses can no longer afford to employ. Will the Secretary of State finally concede that no amount of Government work programmes can undo the damage that they have done to the labour market and to opportunities for young people?
I would expect the Minister to know the numbers, and this question has been asked many times, so I am going to give him another attempt: how many rapists and sexual offenders will be released early under the Sentencing Act?
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Does she share my concern about the difference between the numbers of first-time attendees to screening and returning attendees, at 89.1% and 63% respectively? Does she have a view on how we can increase the number attending their first screening?
I will be paying close attention to these answers.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
As the Minister has repeatedly mentioned Crowborough, which is in my constituency, I assume he will be meeting me this week to clarify the position for my constituents.
Order. Although I am more than happy to have the Minister here for hours and hours, we do have other business to get on with, so I ask Back Benchers to make sure their questions are as short as they can be. I call the Father of the House.
Order. I remind colleagues that it is always best to let other Members know in advance if you intend to refer to them.
It is deeply disappointing that I have to remind the Minister and the Treasury Benchers that paragraph 9.1 of the “Ministerial Code” and paragraph 19.21 of “Erskine May” make it clear that statements on important matters should be made to this House first, not to the press at 10.30 pm on a Thursday night. MPs and their constituents should hear about important policy news in this House first. I expect much better from the Minister. It is totally unacceptable that constituents and MPs hear about important policy matters on the news and not in this House. There is an impact on Members, including me as a constituency MP, and our constituents deserve much better. Minister, we need to see better from you on this.
I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.
Mr Brickell, I was not sure if you were going to swap seats again. Are you comfortable where you are?
Marvellous. The Floor is yours.
We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—are we ready?
I call the shadow Minister.
Order. The hon. Member has been here throughout the debate.
I call Matt Western to wind up briefly.
Order. I know this is an interesting debate and topic, but Members would be best to keep speeches 100% within scope.
Over 700,000 young people are now out of work. That figure is up 100,000 year on year, and the youth unemployment rate is now at over 16%—higher than at any point during the pandemic. As this is likely to be the ministerial team’s final question time, will the Secretary of State reflect on the damage that the Employment Rights Act 2025 and national insurance increases have had on youth unemployment? Behind all those figures are stories of young people not earning or learning. They do not need yet more billion-pound Government schemes. They need a growing economy with businesses that want to hire them. Will the next Government finally deliver that?
rose—
Thank you very much for coming to my assistance, Madam Deputy Speaker—or to my defence, rather ironically. The Minister has touched on critical industries as a key part of our defence plans for the future. Does she agree that our sovereign capability to manufacture our own fighter aircraft is critical, and does she share my dismay that our production lines sit empty, with no orders from the Government to maintain that sovereign capability?
I have two issues affecting my constituency. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Crowborough camp affects the back of my constituency, and Copthorne hotel is close to Gatwick. The Minister, when I met him and the mayor of Uckfield, promised to do proper engagement with MPs. Why did I not find out about the length of stay being extended to 2030 until today? It was the talk of our cadets on Armed Forces Day on Saturday, with London and the south-east affected, and I am very interested in the cost. On the prioritisation of closures, Gatwick expansion is coming and the Copthorne is one of the 170 hotels where planning permission is running out. It is needed for local uses, and issues of community cohesion and safety are playing out on either side of my constituency. I ask to join Madam Deputy Speaker in hearing from the Minister about Crowborough and Copthorne, because I am seeing this issue play out in real time in my community.
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to contribute—as they are doing. I will not impose a time limit at this stage. If you stick to about five minutes each, we should accommodate everyone.
I recently visited Grimsby jobcentre and met Nick Gregory and Jo Corney, two excellent officials. One piece of information they gave me was about the opening of a youth hub in Scunthorpe, which will serve many parts of my constituency, but many of the young people who go will be from rural areas. What new initiatives are the Government planning to help provide work for young people in rural areas?
Missing from the statement, unless I missed it myself, was the word “deterrent”. The Minister suggests that it is good news, and people moving out of hotels into other accommodation is just that. What he does not mention, however, is that other accommodation also includes houses in multiple occupation, and there are only so many military sites that may or may not be available. Given that I wrote to him on 18 June, would the Minister meet me to discuss Stoke Heath in my constituency, a village—actually, a rural settlement—of about 352 people that is going to see the arrival of up to 121 asylum seekers? This rural settlement has no integrated public services and very few public services at all. The nearest bus stop, for example, is a 30-minute walk away. Will he accept that a community meeting being held on Thursday, chaired by myself, should at least have somebody from the Home Office or Serco in attendance? People are being kept in the dark. There has been secrecy—no consultation and no transparency. People have a right to know what is going on. Would he encourage a member of Serco to come along to that meeting and answer some of the local community’s concerns?
The Pensions Minister likes to spend a lot of time criticising the previous Government for their actions on pensioners. He also spends an awful lot of time talking up his legacy on helping pensioners, but his actions simply do not reflect the narrative. So far, he has capped salary sacrifice, there have been delays to the pensions dashboards, we have had retrospective changes to inheritance tax on pension pots, and—as we have heard—the Government are chasing hard-up pensioners for their winter fuel allowance. All of this creates uncertainty among savers and pensioners alike, so I will repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell): is the Pensions Minister hopeful that his successor will do a better job of looking after pensioners?
In June, 20 grooming gang perpetrators were jailed for offences in West Yorkshire, which included the rape and abuse of three girls of whom the youngest was aged just 12. Abbas Kaji was sentenced to just seven years for rape, and Mohammed Ishtiaq Hussain to just eight. All too soon, these vile men will be back on the streets of the very communities that they terrorised, and the idea that the Government could cut their sentences to be even shorter is terrifying. This is not about the past but about the present and the future, so can the Minister please assure the House that everybody involved in grooming and rape gang offences will, at the very least, serve the entirety of their already too-short sentences?
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, which confirms what we have suspected since last week: this Government are planning to put more illegal migrants into sites across the country. Some of those sites are due to host illegal migrants until 2030, yet the Government did not think that it was worth alerting the hon. Members who represent those communities and live nearby ahead of the announcement in the press. Rather than subjecting the plans to proper scrutiny here in Parliament, the Government tried to sneak the news out quietly before the weekend, without discussion here in this place by those people’s democratically elected representatives. That is exactly the same playbook that the Government have tried to use in places like Inverness where, thanks to the work of the Conservative group on the Highland council, the Home Office’s plans to house illegal migrants at Cameron barracks were blocked. We have seen in far too many cases the risk that illegal migrants, most of them young men, pose to the public, particularly to women and children. If the Government are planning to force communities to live alongside people who have shown complete contempt for our laws and norms by the very act of coming here illegally, the least that they can do is to allow those plans to be subject to proper scrutiny. Now that we finally have an opportunity to scrutinise the plans, we can perhaps see why the Government were so keen to hide them. For all the talk of smashing the gangs, they reveal that this Government do not have any faith in their own ability to fix the problem. If they are so sure that they are ending illegal channel crossings, why are the Government making plans to host illegal migrants in this country until 2030? What does that tell us about their confidence in their own approach? The truth is that this Government have no intention of fixing the problem: they care only about managing people’s perceptions of it. While they talk up the reduction in illegal migrants living in hotels, they conveniently leave out the fact that thousands more migrants are being housed in so-called dispersal accommodation: homes in the middle of our towns and cities where illegal migrants pose an even greater risk to the public. Since the last election, 75,000 people have crossed the channel. In the past few weeks alone, 3,000 have made the crossing. For all the Government’s talk of removals, nearly all of them—some 93%—are being allowed to stay. The Minister boasts about a reduction in outstanding decisions, but they have achieved that reduction by granting asylum to thousands upon thousands of illegal migrants. The Minister said in his statement that to stop the use of asylum hotels for good “we must go further, and that means scaling up our use of larger, more basic facilities.” He is right that the Government must go further to stop the use of asylum hotels for good, but he is utterly wrong that the problem is solved by instead spending huge resources to create other places to live for those who arrive here illegally. As Conversative Members have made clear time and again, the only real solution to the crisis at our border is to remove illegal migrants as soon as they arrive. People must know that if they try to break our laws, they cannot stay. For it to be possible to remove people as soon as they arrive, we must leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights that prevents us from doing so, but the Government refuse to recognise that. They are in hock to activist lawyers in this country and unaccountable judges in Strasbourg, and keeping those people happy takes precedence over keeping the British people safe and delivering on their democratic will. The plans before us are another sorry example of that. More illegal migrants will enter the endless cycle of appeals and legal challenges, allowing them to stay here for years at the taxpayer’s expense. More people will be put at risk because of these plans and because of the Government’s unwillingness truly to solve this problem for good.
The increased PIP costs are expected to add an extra £5 billion to the welfare budget this year. As the TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted, the number of households earning over £100,000 and getting PIP has doubled to 200,000 claimants. Will the Minister make an assessment of the potential merits of means-testing PIP to ensure targeted support?
15. What recent estimate he has made of the level of fraud and error in the social security system.
In Scotland, benefit fraud has effectively been decriminalised; the number of prosecutions is vanishingly small. Given that the Department for Work and Pensions continues to have a role in Scotland—administering some benefits, despite devolution—what can the Department do to tackle fraud there? It is happening here, and we have a two-tier system in Scotland.
Soft-touch fever is spreading across the land because in Scotland, the SNP Scottish Executive are about to start releasing rapists as much as 2.5 years early. Do the Ministers on the Front Bench not realise that they are so out of touch with the public on this issue that they risk the very fundamentals of the justice system?
The Mercure hotel in Dumfries is home to around 100 men of uncertain origin and, thanks to the good offices of the Home Office, I have been able to visit. However, I have not been able to get any clarity on the criteria for closure and certainly not on any kind of timescale for closure. Can the Minister, without recourse to saying, “We will close it in due course”—which is beginning to sound a bit like the old jibe about the first world war: “It will be over by Christmas; we just cannot tell you which Christmas”—offer us a bit more clarity on when these hotels will be closed?