5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I echo the Secretary of State on the sad news from Iraq and, on behalf of the Opposition, send condolences to the family concerned. It is very sad news indeed. I have a simple question for the Secretary of State: has the Treasury signed off the defence investment plan?
No wonder the defence investment plan is so late: the Labour Government still have not worked out how to pay for it. The good news is that others have. Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary, has said: “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”, and Tony Blair himself warned last week: “By the end of this decade, we could be spending more on incapacity and disability benefits than on defence. No serious country can do that.” Is not the truth that whoever becomes the next Labour Prime Minister must do one thing above all else to boost defence, and that is to cut welfare and spend the savings on the British armed forces?
Although I accept the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, given that we are about to have a national grooming gang inquiry that Opposition Members had to drag the Government, kicking and screaming, to do, would it not be helpful for that inquiry to have the data? Surely sunlight is the best disinfectant on this issue?
I have asked this question both as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee and on the Floor of the House to the Secretary of State’s predecessor. Given that the new Secretary of State is a numbers man, I hope that he can answer it where his predecessor could not. How much in redundancy payments will this measure cost the British taxpayer, and can he confirm that no person currently employed by NHS England will be fired, paid a redundancy fee, and then rehired by the Department of Health and Social Care?
On the point of accountability and scrutiny, the Government are looking to abolish HSSIB or bring it into the CQC, they are getting rid of Healthwatch—which serves my constituents so well—in places such as Surrey and Hampshire, and they are getting rid of governors from the boards of foundation trusts. That does seem to suggest that they have not really thought the accountability point through. Would not this be the occasion for the new Secretary of State to stamp his mark on this Bill by conceding that some of the changes in the Bill are not what was intended, and to take this opportunity to give confidence back to the public that they will have the accountability and scrutiny that they deserve?
The Government’s strategic defence review recommended an increase in the Army Reserve by 20%, but at the very same time the Government are closing Grantham’s Prince William of Gloucester barracks, which trains 70% of all Army reservists in the country. Will the Minister review that decision so that we have the capacity to train new Army reservist recruits?
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for moving the motion, and I thank the many people who signed the petition, including 435 from my constituency, who helped to secure this important debate. Although I welcome it, it is deeply disappointing that such a debate is needed. We are here only because of the outcry from the public, who are outraged that the Government and public institutions continue to shy away from questions of ethnicity, immigration status and religion. Baroness Casey’s “National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse” reported in June last year, and concluded that catastrophic systemic failures and institutional inaction had allowed grooming gangs to operate freely for many years. Recommendation 4 rightly stated that the Government should mandate “the collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all suspects in child sexual abuse”.
That is shameful. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend brought that up; that is why it is essential that today’s debate rectifies that situation. Missing from Baroness Casey’s recommendations was the vital need for data collection on religion and immigration status—factors that surely need to be understood so that if they are found to be related to higher offending rates, strategies for protecting children can be that much more targeted and effective. As Baroness Casey acknowledges in her audit, for too long the authorities have shied away from the ethnicity of people involved, and “blindness”, “ignorance” and “prejudice” led to repeated failures, over decades, to properly investigate cases. If we had complete and consistent data, we would be able to answer more questions with greater accuracy. Are certain types of exploitation increasing? How are offenders operating? Are those from certain ethnic backgrounds more likely than others to commit certain sorts of crimes? If we understand what patterns exist, we can improve policing, bring more survivors the justice they deserve and stop these horrendous crimes happening again. Other questions need to be answered, too. Why are institutions so adverse to collecting and reporting such data? The Jay report, published in 2014, documented a reluctance to discuss offender ethnicity openly. We know that the Labour-run councils of Rotherham—
I thank the hon. Member for all her work on this matter over many years. I know the abuse that she went through for standing up for those girls.
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point; only then can we root out why people failed to investigate. Was it because of fear of being called racist, or even far right? Why were the cases not investigated? Was it because of a culture of political correctness that has been thriving in some Labour councils, such as in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and Oldham, and in other agencies, such as the police? They dodged the hard questions. Why? Because they were worried that it might reveal something that did not fit with their ideology of multiculturalism. Shockingly, in her audit last year, Baroness Casey concluded that “Questions about ethnicity have been…dodged for years.” After a six-month wait, the Government responded to the Casey audit, accepting all the recommendations, but six months on from that, and a full year since the audit was published, here we are, still waiting for implementation. Will the Minister update us on that and let us know when we can expect the data to be published? Also, not only has the Government’s official inquiry into grooming gangs moved at a glacial pace, but one of their own—a Labour peer—has been appointed as its chair, and a former council chief executive and a chair of an NHS foundation trust have also been involved as panel members. That is exactly what the survivors expressly said they did not want to happen: the inquiry to be handed over to people from the very institutions under investigation. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has got on with the job, putting the Government to shame with his independent rape gang inquiry, which heard 10 days of evidence in February and which will report its findings next week. I would not say that I was “fortunate enough” to be part of that panel, but when asked to do so, I accepted. Quite honestly, what we were told was horrifying. There were horrendous stories of rape, but it was not just rape—although that is bad enough. Women were tortured—battered, strangled, cut, whipped—until they were close to death, and then brought back around to be raped again. That happened over a sustained period because nobody wanted to believe what these women said when they reached out to the institutions that should have looked after them. Some were reaching out to children’s homes, which were paid thousands of pounds a year to look after them, but they were let down. Why? Because they were white, working-class girls, many of them vulnerable. People did not want to listen to them and would literally call them “white trash”, while allowing others whom they saw as elders in a community to be above reproach, and therefore did not investigate at all. If we are to successfully end these appalling sexual crimes against children, we must fully understand what is happening, and to do that, we need the data. It is not racist to examine the ethnicity of these criminals; nor is it discriminatory to examine their immigration status. We must follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how uncomfortable the truth of it is. These awkward conversations must finally be had, and anyone who might be avoiding them because of a self-serving sense of political correctness must now decide to put the safety of children first. This is not a political football, a right-wing bandwagon or a dog-whistle issue. This is about life-altering suffering and abuse of the most shocking kind—suffering and abuse that could have been prevented. The survivors deserve to know the truth about the failings that were allowed to happen. I hope that all of us here today can agree that the only thing that really matters is protecting children, and that we must do everything to put them first.
The Government’s constant refrain is that they are “working at pace”, but the reality is that our adversaries are doing exactly that. In an increasingly unstable world, the lack of a defence readiness Bill is a significant disadvantage. Will the Minister set out when the Bill will be published, and the specific date on which it will come before the House?
On page 243 of volume II part III, the Minister’s predecessor, talking about Labour MPs, states: “Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.” Is that the same experience the Minister is having in every meeting he has?
I am going to try to get some clarity, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) asked when there will be written explanations of the draft changes, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). In both answers, the Minister talked about process. Well, process dictates that there should be written answers, so when will we see them in this House?
The Secretary of State is making himself the data controller of all the data that will be in place. What impact does that have on the sections he has just talked about?
Before I start, I must declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, as well as someone who has been moved to the back of a waiting list, after asking for a consultant review for the third time, and finding that I still do need it but it will have to wait a bit longer. Churchill once said: “Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have”. Good health is perhaps the most important asset that any individual can have, and I am sure that across the House, we all want the very best healthcare and the most efficient NHS for our constituents. As such, I am confident that this Bill has been brought before the House with the very best of intentions, but does it achieve its goals? In general, organisational restructure involves some sort of assessment of where we are now, followed by a vision of what the future should look like, and then a focus on how to get smoothly from A to B. The Government started with a review of the current system. They called it the “Independent investigation of the NHS in England”, although the House should note that it was independently conducted by a former Labour Minister. In his report, Lord Darzi said that “a top-down reorganisation of NHS England and Integrated Care Boards is neither necessary nor desirable”. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), seemed to agree. In September 2024, he was reported as saying that a top-down reorganisation was the “last thing” he wanted to do. Within six months, he seemingly changed his mind, which he is allowed to do, but it is regrettable that, having begun the last thing he wanted to do, such little progress has been made on his promised first acts, such as the roll-out of fracture liaison services. So many other promises are delayed, undelivered or, in the case of the promise to double the number of medical school places, somewhat bizarrely denied. Another of the Government’s stated objectives is improving the patient experience. At the moment, we have Healthwatch—an independent organisation that listens to patients and provides feedback. More than 300,000 people a year share their experiences with their local Healthwatch to improve services, and that feedback has led to positive change. The Government cited Healthwatch data in their King’s Speech publication. Against the backdrop of rising clinical negligence claims, concerns about maternity care and even reports of abuse in hospitals, it is clear that more must be done to listen to patients and address the problems, but this Bill abolishes Healthwatch England and effectively ends local Healthwatch organisations. The Government plan to replace it with a patient experience directorate within the Department of Health and Social Care. As Councillor Dr Wendy Taylor of the Local Government Association has warned that this “risks organisations being seen to mark their own homework.” There is another concern. Facts are stubborn, but statistics can be pliable. How can the public ensure that they are getting reality and not spin from the Government? Ministers keep celebrating falling waiting lists, when in fact patients are being removed from the list without treatment because their appointments have been cancelled, because they missed an appointment they were not told about, because they have not filled in a form, or because they were called several times asking if they still needed an elective operation and agreed to see a consultant to check. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) made a passionate speech about the importance of HSSIB. This Bill seeks to abolish the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It provides a safe space, modelled on air accident investigations. Through the avoidance of blame and liability, it can get to the truth and prevent future tragedies. The Bill abolishes HSSIB apparently to simplify the patient safety landscape and reduce the number of organisations. In response to criticism, the Government have attempted to provide reassurance by saying that HSSIB will retain autonomy within the CQC, but the Government cannot have it both ways. Is HSSIB being abolished, or is it being hidden within the CQC? Either way, the new unit within the CQC will face a number of challenges, such as the undermining of confidence in safe spaces, because it will be within a regulatory body. Its independence will be undermined, because Ministers have now signalled their intent to direct the vast majority of investigations and because the national quality board will prioritise any recommendations that they make. We will also have a CQC board without full oversight of what it is accountable for and, somewhat bizarrely, a risk that if the regulatory part of the CQC wants information from the safe space, and the other part of the CQC does not want to publish it, we could see the CQC suing itself. We have all this upheaval to have one less—or at least the illusion of one less—organisation. How on earth does that improve patient safety? As many have said, including my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), the single patient record is a good idea in principle. Patient information is currently fragmented across different parts of the healthcare system, and bringing it together could save lives, save time and improve prevention. However, the introduction of such a system must be well executed. First, there are practicality concerns. Do patients want their full medical records, including sensitive conditions and perhaps including sexual health records, visible to every health professional? The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about the difference between a single patient record that is all of the same type and one that is part of a federated platform. The Secretary of State talked about linking up people’s ability to see the current system, but there is huge variety in systems. Even within one hospital, there might be a different system for maternity, A&E, blood results, historical notes and current clinic appointments. Will NHS staff be required to learn all those systems for all over the country, or will data be transferred to a new system? Either move has its downsides, but I am not clear which the Government intend to do. Secondly, there are security concerns. As has been said, the NHS has the most valuable health dataset in the world. The Government must provide clarity in relation to who controls the data, who is responsible for maintaining its accuracy, and how it will be kept securely. Hackers are already trying to gain access to it, knowing that even if it is encrypted, quantum computing will be able to unpick encryption in the years to come. The Government must ensure that they are quantum-ready. What role is the National Cyber Security Centre playing in this regard? Life, in all things, is a balance. If arm’s length bodies are in control of things for which Ministers are nominally responsible, we have a democratic deficit, and it is understandable that the Government want to recoup that, but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the powers in the Bill for them to take control of everything risk the creation of a politicised service in which those who shout the loudest get preferential treatment. Those with very rare conditions such as corticobasal degeneration, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, Lafora body disease, Friedrich’s ataxia and many more such conditions may not have as well-funded or celebrity lobby groups acting on their behalf as those with other conditions. How will the Secretary of State ensure that clinical need drives the provision of services, rather than the resources of lobby groups or access to Ministers or, indeed, the Secretary of State? As the NHS is undergoing a massive reorganisation, I am mindful of what the Minister once said: “The reorganisation of health services always distracts from people’s jobs, destroys morale and wastes money”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 680, c. 809.] It also stalls progress and takes a lot of staff time, which may be why we have a 10-year health plan that took a year to write, why the workforce plan has still not been produced, why the so-called “rapid” national maternity investigation has not been completed, why waiting lists are up for patients referred for admission in several specialities, why we have a glacially slow roll-out of fracture liaison services, why the mechanical thrombectomy service promised for stroke victims by April is not available, why there is no response to the Hughes report, why there is a denial of the promise of an increase in the number of medical school places, and why doctors have announced their 16th strike, costing millions of pounds in appointments. The Government promised results, but all they have delivered is disruption, delay and disappointment. I feel for the current Health Secretary. His predecessor was more focused on unseating the Prime Minister, and he is left to pick up the pieces. However, despite our political differences, I do have hope. Previously, he insisted that trans women were women, but I understand that he has now changed his mind. He has listened, and he has accepted that biological women are distinct and require single-sex spaces, in line with the law, biology, and common sense. I am therefore hopeful that the new Health Secretary will also listen to concerns about the Bill, and that we can work together in Committee to improve it. As I said at the beginning, we all want the best possible health service for our constituents.
T5. What is the Minister’s assessment of the extra investment in defence and the extra kit that Ukraine will need as a consequence of our handing money to Putin through the relaxation of oil and gas sanctions?
I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. Could he explain what the pathway of local accountability is for ICBs?
I am glad that we are having this important debate on accountability. Is there not a danger that the centralisation of this direction power in the Secretary of State effectively signals to MPs, “Don’t engage with ICBs, as they will not have accountability to local MPs. If you want changes to happen, go through the Secretary of State rather than engaging locally, because that is where the power is going to lie”?
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I did not agree with everything in his speech, but I know of his passion for NHS services and I am grateful for the work that he did as a Minister, particularly in helping me to advocate for my constituents, which I will come to in the main part of my speech. I should start with the standard declarations: I am a former NHS doctor and my wife is a current NHS doctor. There is a lot of good and very reasonable stuff in this Bill. I very much support the abolition of NHS England and I am glad that is being taken forward. The single care record makes complete sense. It is pretty crazy that we do not already have a national system in place. I think there will be some speed bumps in terms of administration, and the question I have is this: how is it going to encode sex data? What data is the record going to use as sex data, given the problems and the discussion that we had just before this debate? For me, the problem is about accountability. I have a local integrated care board. I also have NHS trusts, one of which is Surrey and Borders, which has been failing to deliver rapid, timely autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments for children. Frankly, that failure to provide a speedy assessment for ASD or ADHD locally is a disgrace. I have been putting pressure on my local trust to try to change that. My constituents expect me to do that. Some of my constituents expect me, as an MP, to be able to click my fingers to make this happen, but of course I cannot do that because this is the NHS trust, the chief executive and the ICB. I raised this issue in Parliament with the then Secretary of State, asking him to investigate my local mental health trust and look at the failings, and I am grateful that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, responded to me and wrote to my ICB. The response I got was that this was within the ICB’s framework, and that what ICBs do is essentially up to them. My ability to go about changing this is therefore very limited. I get the point about clause 11 and the Secretary of State taking a few more powers to direct ICBs, but that is a very blunt tool. In reality, it will not be accountability. I cannot quite believe that it will work in such a way that, if I raise something in Parliament, a directive will force my ICB to deliver better for my patients. I cannot quite see that that will happen in reality—or perhaps I am wrong and it will. In that case, Parliament will essentially become a forum for MPs—all of whose constituents will expect them to be able to give directives to our NHS trusts and ICBs—to raise these issues so that the Secretary of State can take forward a directive. It would be far better if ICBs were directly accountable to local politicians. I heard the response that the plan is for ICBs to be accountable to mayors, but we do not have a mayor in Surrey and, even though many of us have been calling for a mayor, there is no timescale for getting one. ICBs need to be directly accountable to locally elected representatives in some way, shape or form, and the logical group is Members of Parliament, because that is what the public believe and expect. I hope that, as the Bill goes through, we will investigate the local accountability of ICBs in the NHS and that perception. One of the biggest dangers is the sense that we, as MPs, can deliver direct changes in day-to-day clinical commissioning, from which, of course, we have a degree of distance. I reiterate that, at the moment, the public perspective and public belief is that that is what we are empowered to do. We therefore have to be empowered to do that, or we have to have mechanisms to make it clear to people that local NHS care is not in the direct control of myself or anyone else here, apart from Ministers on the Front Bench. Patient groups are an important mechanism, but they are also important in terms of consultation. I worry about what will happen when ICBs consult on plans. What is the number? What is the survey? What is the metric? Who is appointing the ICB chair? Who is appointing the NHS foundation trust chair? Who is appointing the members of all these quangos? Where do democratically elected representatives sit in these appointment decisions? Given the time limit, I will finish on this point. Accountability is critical in getting this right. Care models need accountability. I have raised this matter in Parliament for many years now. I hope that we can use the Bill as an opportunity to give our constituents the accountability they need and deserve in the delivery of local health care.
This morning, France once again demonstrated that seizing sanctioned Russian shadow fleet vessels in international waters is both legal and achievable. In contrast, although the Prime Minister confirmed on 25 March that we have the legal basis to act in our own territorial waters, since that pledge, hundreds of vessels have passed through our waters unchallenged. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is deterrence in reverse? It is tough rhetoric, but no action. In Moscow, that gap between what Britain says and what Britain does will be read as exactly one thing: weakness.
There is a chasm between supporting and leading. Is it not the case that the Attorney General—the same Attorney General who has no hesitation in hounding British veterans through the courts—has now decided that intercepting Russian shadow fleet tankers would breach maritime law? Our allies in Finland, Sweden and Estonia have no such hesitation. France and the United States have no such hesitation. Can the Secretary of State explain why the only person who seems determined to tie Britain’s hands is his Government’s chief legal officer?
On pages 115-116 in volume II, part I of the documents released today, there is an email from Olly Robbins dated 16 September 2025 in which he writes to another senior civil servant in Downing Street saying that he has still not yet seen “potentially crucial documents” in relation to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. That date is important: it is the same day that Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet Secretary, wrote to the Prime Minister saying that all “appropriate processes” had been followed in appointing Peter Mandelson. Can those two things be true? Can appropriate processes have been followed if Mr Robbins himself had not seen these “potentially crucial documents”?
It has been over a year since the verdict, so what is the Minister doing to persuade non-compliant public sector bodies, like the NHS, to implement the Supreme Court ruling at the earliest possible opportunity?
Order. The hon. Lady really must get to a question—she has spoken for nearly as long as her party’s Front Bencher.
Last month, the Government announced that they had finally taken delivery of the 47th F-35B, thus completing our initial tranche of the order. However, that is not strictly true, because two of those planes, ZM177 and ZM179, are currently stranded in the Azores, where they have been since 9 March, which is nearly three months ago. Can the Minister explain why those planes are stranded there and who holds responsibility for completing their delivery: Lockheed Martin or the Ministry of Defence?
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Hinchingbrooke hospital in my constituency is one of the new hospitals to be built as part of the new hospital programme—it is in wave zero—but it currently does not have an electronic patient record system, so we have the fragmented patient history that he has just mentioned. It desperately needs to increase its rating on the HIMSS—Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society—scale as a new hospital, but it does not have the funding required to install a patient record system. Will he guarantee that the hospital will receive the funding required to deliver a new electronic patient record system?
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. If the story in The Times is to be believed, he may be positioning himself to be the chief successor to the Prime Minister. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance sight of the material that was published today, which I was fortunate enough to see this morning. However, it is important to put on record that only a very few Members of this House were able to see it this morning. It was available at 9.30 am, yet it was published only at 2 pm, so here we are today with hon. Members not having had a chance to read it and yet being expected to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions. I know the response will be that we are going to have a general debate on Wednesday, but as Government Members will know, if the Minister chooses not to take interventions in a general debate, there is no scrutiny at all. At worst, this is obfuscation; it is an attempt to deny scrutiny in a way that is unnecessary. The documents should have been published at 9.30 this morning in advance of this statement.
It was on the news. The case of Peter Mandelson’s appointment remains of the utmost national importance simply because it touches on national security and on the Prime Minister’s honesty, integrity and competence. I want to make two basic points about the material before us today: the first is about disclosure, and the second about the process by which Peter Mandelson was appointed. On disclosure, although we have a huge number of documents, it is clear that very many are missing. Some have been withheld, some have been lost, and it is clear that some have probably been destroyed. Because of the approach the Government are taking, however, it is impossible for hon. Members to know which documents fall into which category. We are told that the Metropolitan police has requested that certain documents be retained, but the Government have refused to tell us which documents are being retained. I respect the fact that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has told us about three broad categories now—this is progress. We did ask for those categories some time ago and were told that we could not have them, but it turns out that we can have them. We know there is no good legal basis for the Government not to disclose to this House which documents are being withheld. The Government should tell us. Indeed, it would be possible for them to disclose those documents to the ISC or to certain Members of the House on Privy Council terms. Again, this is obfuscation. It is an unnecessary attempt to defer or deny scrutiny, and the Humble Address did not allow for the Government to redefine the request in this way. If the Government wish to retain documents because the Met police has asked them to do so, they should come back to the House and change the terms of the Humble Address. They have not done that and, consequently, they risk being in contempt. Some Ministers have duly handed over their WhatsApp messages; it is clear that some have not. Are we to believe that there was no WhatsApp exchange at all between the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson? We know that there was, because it has been reported in the press, and yet those messages reported in the press do not appear in the release today. It is clear that some messages have gone missing. It is also the case that, in all these documents, the Prime Minister’s presence is almost non-existent. Despite the fact that he was appointing a man to be head of our most senior mission, we have almost nothing in his name. It is as though somehow he appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador without leaving any documentary trace of that decision at all. It really beggars belief. Take, for example, the former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, well known to be a friend and ally of Mandelson. He appears to have submitted a nil return on his WhatsApp messages. I hope the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will tell us why. Why was it that there were never any messages? That seems unlikely. Was it that those messages have been deleted? The House has a right to know. The House has a right to know in each case whether information has gone missing or it has not been handed over. We know that Peter Mandelson has refused to hand over his phone—it is in the document. We know that he was asked to give over his phone on 31 March, some time after the Humble Address. He has declined to do so, and it is simply not acceptable that the Government should allow this to pass without some sort of pushback. The Government has within their power the opportunity to take legal action to recover the exit payment they gave to Peter Mandelson if he is not playing ball with the Humble Address. There is then the matter of redactions. There are acres and acres of white space, a constellation of asterisks—perhaps all too appropriate for a Labour document. It is clear from the reports in the press that the ISC has had serious concerns about the redaction process. I listened to what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said, and I will listen with interest to what members of the Committee say in a moment. There are a huge number of redactions under the heading “Third Party”. On what grounds have those redactions been made? For example, on page 251 of part III, Mandelson refers to someone who is “currently staying” with him in Government property. This name is redacted. Why has it been redacted? Why cannot the House be told who was staying in Government property with the ambassador? On the national security vetting material, it seems once again that the Government are happier to provide The Guardian with more information than they are prepared to provide to Parliament. Preparation of the security vetting document for publication appeared in recess, leaked by someone in Government who was familiar with it, and then we have seen that The Guardian has multiple sources saying that concerns were raised by the vetting agency about Peter Mandelson’s foreign contacts with the Chinese Minister, with Oleg Deripaska, with Tamir Hayman and so on. There were multiple sources, and yet we are being asked to believe that this information was only seen by a tiny handful of people within Government. Someone somewhere is not being frank with us. If we had time, and we will have time on Wednesday, we could talk about the concerning information about Chagos. We could talk about the fact that Peter Mandelson, after he had been appointed, asked whether he could do paid work in Shanghai on a private basis. We could talk about the fact that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Foreign Secretary saying, “if you were minded to appoint me I would make sure you never regret it.” The truth is that we must return once again to the process by which Peter Mandelson was appointed. Everything in the documents released today shows that the Prime Minister did not follow the instructions he was given by the then Cabinet Secretary on 11 August 2024. He was told to get security vetting done before the appointment was confirmed, which he did not do. He was asked to do that because the Prime Minister had been provided with a due diligence document by the Cabinet Office that said that Peter Mandelson had an ongoing friendship with Epstein after he had been sent to prison, that he had been a director of a Russian defence company that had supplied arms to Putin during his invasion of Crimea, and that he had maintained unhealthy business relations in China. Despite this, the Prime Minister did not get the security vetting done before he made the appointment: he went ahead and made it anyway. The rest of the system was then scrabbling around afterwards to try to make up for the error, but it was the Prime Minister’s error. It was clear that due diligence was not followed. It is a failure that is visible from space, it is a failure that will define this Prime Minister’s premiership and it is a failure that will be written as his political epitaph.
On tariffs, I want to explore what the Chancellor said about “significant quantities”, because a significant quantity for a supermarket can be of a completely different scale from a significant quantity for a small South Shropshire farmer. Will the Chancellor guarantee that no South Shropshire farmers will be undercut by the measures on tariffs, and that none of the supermarkets will pass on the cost cuts to British farmers?
I do not support this Bill, and I believe that the reasoned amendment is the right way forward. I will set out clearly the devastating impact that the Bill is about to have, in real time, in my constituency. We have a great local business called Amodil. It is a British family-run business that started with a couple of people in 1976 in Cleobury Mortimer, South Shropshire. I recently went to Cleobury to meet Paul, Chris, Ben and the team, as well as Rob Cooper from the British Stainless Steel Association. The business was founded by Paul Slingsby, who at 75 still works in it today. It is the UK’s largest privately owned supplier and stockholder of stainless steel long products, with more than 1,200 customers—about 20% of the UK market. The people who run Amodil know what they are on about, and they were completely blindsided by the announcement on tariffs. They had not been told, and none of their customers or suppliers, or the people they were involved with, knew anything about it, so they came straight to me. I have written to the Minister multiple times and had one response. He needs to sit down with the largest British business in this industry and have a serious conversation. The big issue that Amodil faces is the tariffs on the stainless steel products it brings in that cannot be made in the UK in the required quantity or type. The Government want to protect the steel industry as an industry of vital strategic importance—I get that—and they want to protect jobs, but for the almost 1,000 jobs they will save, many thousands more will be lost, and I will say exactly where. The UK cannot meet domestic market demand, and a huge gap will be created. Businesses such as Amodil will be forced to import, and tariffs will drive up costs by 50%. There is not the cash across the industry to absorb those extra costs without mass redundancies. The costs will be passed on, meaning that manufacturers’ costs will go up. What will happen then? The customer will buy the finished product from manufacturers overseas at a lower price, and those products are not subject to tariffs. That does not level the playing field for us. The UK does not produce enough stainless steel of the right type or quality to meet demand. Amodil currently has 5,000 tonnes of stainless steel in stock, 2,000 tonnes of which cannot be, and is not, made in the UK. It could take up to 15 years to get some of the skills right. Large-diameter bars of a certain grade are not made in the UK and those bars are vital to key industries, such as aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals, oil, automative, general engineering and many more. If the tariffs are put on these businesses—Amodil is the largest British business in the field in the UK and there are many others—they will be priced out of the industry. I really hope the Secretary of State can see the importance of this matter.
I thank the Secretary of State for saying that. I will follow up personally with him and with Amodil to see if we can talk about a way forward. I said to Amodil, “I believe that this is an unintended consequence of what the Government are trying to do, and once I point this out clearly, there will be a way forward to look at it.” The long and the short of it— I will put my speech to one side—is that there is a certain size of rod that only the UK can make. I watched it at Amodil’s facility a few weeks ago. When it gets past that size, it is not made in this country, but it is needed by so many of those critical industries. Looking at steel as a whole, this matter is just one part of the stainless steel industry. If the Secretary of State, or one of the Ministers, will sit with me and the team at Amodil, they will be able to see, within a matter of minutes, where the gap is and how to plug it. It is along the blanket grading for all the bars. I request a pause for, say, just six months—or if we can talk with Amodil in a matter of days—so we can sit down and look at this, because there is a massive knock-on impact that will seriously hurt the stainless steel industry, and one of the largest employers in my constituency will be massively hurt too.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the Government’s plan for costs for motorists.
May I begin by agreeing with you, Mr Speaker, and saying how disrespectful it is that this U-turn on fuel duty has already been released to the media earlier this week? The news was plastered across national newspapers on Monday, and yesterday the Chancellor conducted a visit to a petrol station with journalists, but it has taken until today for this House to be updated. This is a pattern, Mr Speaker—including, of course, the relentless briefings before the Budget last year about tax measures and fiscal forecasts. You would think that a Government with so little support among their own Back Benchers would have more respect for this place. This change to fuel duty is yet another humiliating U-turn from a Chancellor and Prime Minister whose authority is shot. The Chancellor fought us tooth and nail on this issue. The Conservative party has been campaigning for a fuel duty freeze for months. The Chancellor repeatedly rejected those calls, creating unnecessary uncertainty for motorists and businesses. Why did it take her so long to realise that putting up fuel duty during an energy crisis is a bad idea? Does she really expect us to believe that this is all only happening, as she has suggested, because of better growth? Let us be clear: the Chancellor has been pointing to the slight upward revision in the International Monetary Fund’s growth forecast earlier this week. That forecast was for growth of 1%, but until April the IMF was forecasting growth this year of 1.3%, so where is the supposed growth dividend? Perhaps the Minister can address that momentarily. Is the Chancellor seriously suggesting that the outlook is better now compared with how it looked at the last fiscal event? On wider measures, will the Minister confirm what has also been briefed to the press and not told to the House: that HM Revenue and Customs’ mileage rates are to be changed? Let us be clear that this is a Government lurching from one U-turn to the next. Their mismanagement has left our economy weak. The reality is that they are in no position to support people through these cost of living pressures because they have mismanaged the economy. They have no credibility left, and clearly they have no respect for the House.
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement—although the press, of course, got even more advanced sight of it. The decision taken to cancel the increase in fuel duty is welcome—it has been a long time coming. The Conservative party has been campaigning against the fuel duty rise for months, but the Chancellor has defended that policy repeatedly, leaving motorists and businesses worried about even higher fuel prices in September. It was always obvious that the fuel duty increase would need to be cancelled—obvious to everyone except the Chancellor. Why did she fight us on fuel duty for so long? Why has she been so hellbent on raising fuel duty during an energy crisis? Well, the inevitable U-turn has finally come, but it is astonishing to hear the Chancellor claiming that the Government can afford to help households because the forecasts have improved. Is she seriously suggesting that the economic outlook is now better than at the time of the last fiscal forecasts when we have had the Iran conflict, to which our economy is highly exposed thanks to this Government’s ruinous choices? The Chancellor has just pointed to the IMF forecast being upgraded this week. Let us be very clear about what is going on here: the IMF adjusted its growth forecast for this year up slightly to 1%, but until April it was forecasting 1.3%. Where exactly is the supposed growth dividend? Will the Chancellor directly address that point? This is exactly the same game that the Government played last year when they U-turned on cuts to the winter fuel payment. They claimed then that they were U-turning because the economy was improving when, of course, they were doing it due to political pressure. Nobody bought it then and nobody is buying it now. Once again, we have a weak Government caving in to the inevitable after spending months defending a truly terrible decision. The Chancellor claims that the measures announced today will be funded by a number of different tax measures, but most of the ones she mentions are already in place and baked into the OBR’s forecasts. Given that the Chancellor has not announced any measures to control Government spending, will she confirm that, in fact, the measures that she is announcing today will be funded, at least in part, by yet more Government borrowing? Will she also confirm whether fuel duty rates will still rise to the same level as previously planned after December, or will today’s announcement mean a permanent reduction in fuel duty? Although we in the Opposition welcome some of the measures that the Chancellor has taken today, such as the increase in mileage allowances, it is all very minor compared with the inflation this Government have fuelled since coming into office and the tax rises that the Chancellor has imposed. Today’s announcements will bring little comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs, the countless businesses that have folded and the high streets that are now hollowed out. The reality is that we are in a terrible position to deal with the consequences of the latest energy crisis, thanks to the actions that this Government have taken. The Chancellor claimed that growth is up; it is actually down. She claimed that borrowing is down; it is 75% up compared with the plans that she inherited. She claimed that she is fighting inflation; we have the highest inflation in the G7. She claimed that she is cutting energy bills; energy bills have gone up under this Labour Government. And of course, she did not mention unemployment. On energy, this Government have made a conscious decision not to exploit our own natural resources in the North sea, weakening our economy and our energy security while importing oil from Putin’s Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives. Families and businesses are facing rising costs and rising taxes. People are losing their jobs. The country is hurting. If the Chancellor were serious about the challenges we face, she would commit to getting spending down, tackling the benefits bill and getting taxes down to strengthen our economy. Yet thanks to the Chancellor’s mistakes and the weakness of this dying Government, today’s statement is all we get. Does the Chancellor really think that that is enough?
8. When he plans to publish his Department’s review of and consultation on the opt-out collective actions regime.
As the Minister says, it is really important that the collective regime continues—we have a great reputation globally for our opt-out regime. The litigation finance industry is vital to supporting claims from consumers. The Government said last year that they would proceed with a Bill to restore a legal issue following the PACCAR judgment, so does she have an update on when that Bill will come forward? It was not in the King’s Speech.
T3. JB Springs in Skipton has been in touch on the issue of quotas. It imports steel and is worried about the cost of steel and the future of the company. Personally, I do not have an issue with many aspects of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, but the quota issue is really causing problems. Is there a structure enabling colleagues to meet people from the Department, so that businesses can communicate their worries? Will the Minister keep an open mind about the quotas and review them in less than 12 months?
12. What steps his Department is taking to support the hospitality industry.
Despite what the Minister says, hospitality businesses in my constituency, and the constituencies of my hon. Friends, are reeling from the impact of higher energy costs, and increased national insurance contributions and business rates. These businesses are making it clear that if there are any further increases, they will simply not survive. Why are the Government pressing ahead with another tax in the form of the overnight visitor levy, and will she talk to businesses before proceeding with that?
Along with the stealthy silence of knives and the deadly danger of guns, crossbows, in the wrong hands, cost lives. As the Leader of the House will know, they cost the lives of Louise Hunt and her sister Hannah, who were murdered by such a weapon. I am delighted that the Government announced in March that they are going to ban the sale of new crossbows and license existing ones. That responded to calls that I and Members from across the House made following that awful event, but we have heard little more. All we have heard is that the Government will consult on the detailed arrangements. However, there is no detail on the timetable and nothing about means or method. Will the Leader of the House update the House, or will the appropriate Minister do so by means of a statement, so that we can be sure that there will be no hesitation, no obfuscation and no prevarication? Any of those things would cost still more lives.