5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
On Friday, I opened the new Premier Inn in my constituency—a project that was passed under the last Conservative Government—but many businesses in my constituency are failing because of increased costs and regulation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an absolute travesty for our country?
Does the Secretary of State not concede that GDP per capita is down? Can he tell me that a single one of his constituents, apart from those on welfare, feels better off under this Government?
I will begin with an issue where the Government have promised action time and again but have failed to act: solar mega-plants. If rural communities are to host nationally significant energy infrastructure, we must be compensated fairly for doing so. An entire parliamentary term has passed, and yet the Government have still not regulated mandatory compensation, despite promising to do so. The consequences are real. In Rutland and Lincolnshire, a 2,100-acre industrial plant with 10-foot solar panels will fence in some of our villages on all sides for the next 60 years—a decision that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) happily signed off on in his first 24 hours as Energy Secretary. Mallard Pass has subsequently been purchased by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a company with a global transaction value of $30 billion. Last Friday, I convened a meeting with Quinbrook and the affected parish councillors from Rutland and Lincolnshire. I had to intervene just to get the executives in the room, and what they put on the table was an insult. They have refused to honour the promises made during the application process to pay per megawatt generated, reinterpreting it to mean only energy exported—a sleight of hand that will cost my communities £44,000 a year. Let us put this in plain terms. A solar plant is estimated to generate annual revenues after finance and operating costs of £10 million to £15 million a year, and yet the company claims it can afford to give my communities only a paltry £96,000 a year.
My right hon. Friend is completely right. What is breathtaking about this offer of £96,000 a year is that in a previous meeting—in a statement the company now disavows—we were told that paying compensation any higher would make the project financially unviable. That is to say that a project generating £15 million a year would be made financially unviable if it upped its offer to £144,000 a year in compensation. I wonder how Quinbrook’s investors and shareholders would feel if I asked them why margins are so narrow and whether they can have confidence in Quinbrook. I give notice today that if that offer is not substantially improved, that is precisely what I intend to do: I will name every investor and every shareholder on the Floor of this House, and I will write to them and ask whether they are comfortable with what is being done to my communities in Rutland and Lincolnshire. Quinbrook is offering less than 40% of the rate being offered on comparable developments in the east midlands. In fact, the only national programme offering less than Mallard Pass is Cleve Hill, which—surprise, surprise—is also owned by Quinbrook. Over the two years of construction works, Quinbrook issued a good-will handout of £200,000 as a one-off donation—not for each year, but across the two. Some residents’ homes have already lost 70% of their value. My question is: when will the Government stand up for us? I intend to amend the Government’s energy independence Bill to make community compensation mandatory for solar developments and to backdate it, but the Government could act first. The King’s Speech also contained no measures to ban SLAPPs—the use of aggressive, unfounded legal threats to silence whistleblowers. I will use parliamentary privilege today to expose one of the most stomach-churning examples I have encountered. I hope this will shame the perpetrator into silence and similarly force the Government into action. The company, which is called Enough, sells self-swab rape kits to women and children, and it does so on the back of a series of lies: that the kits are admissible in court—they are not; that women are more likely to be raped than to get cancer—they are not; that 430,000 people are raped in the UK every year—they are not; and that owning of its devices will deter a man from raping you—as if it is my responsibility as a woman to stop a man raping me. More than 40 sexual assault charities have urged against use of the kits. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has also spoken out against them. The Advertising Standards Authority is investigating the company, as is Trading Standards. The kits prevent proper evidence collection and stop perpetrators’ DNA being checked against police records. A case has already collapsed because of the use of one such kit. In a debate on Times Radio, I told one of the founders, Katie White, that I had seen the threatening letters that Enough had sent to rape charities and young women across our country. When asked if this was true by the journalist, Katie said, “No, not true.” This was also a lie.
My hon. Friend has enormous experience, and it is exactly the MHRA that we need to look at. This is not a medical device, yet it is being treated as such. I want to pay tribute to the brave young girl who has shared with me the letter sent to her by Enough. She is not a journalist or a campaigner, and she does not have the protections that I enjoy as a Member of Parliament, so Enough thought it could silence her. The first letter, signed personally by both founders, Katie White and Tom Allchurch, told her that she had seven days to comply, or they would pursue “injunctive relief, damages for defamation, and recovery of legal costs.” They accused her of scaremongering. Then—and I want the House to hear this clearly—they said to a young woman who had simply dared to raise concerns: “Carefully consider the long-term consequences of continuing this campaign…you not only risk serious legal considerations, but also lasting damage to your personal reputation, career prospects, and future opportunities.” They threatened to destroy her future because she posted questions on Instagram. A week later, to ensure there was no ambiguity, they sent a second letter, explicitly calling it a cease and desist. This is predatory, and it is not a one-off. A rape charity has also shared with me a letter it has received from Enough—lawyers threatening a rape charity into silence. I will tell Members what that letter said. After once again threatening legal action, Enough had the audacity to write: “Our client considers such an approach to be in the best interests of survivors.” Citing the best interests of survivors—said by a company that lies to survivors. Enough’s targets are rape charities and young women. It has tried to make their lives hell. I urge the Government to ban self-swab rape kits, and I urge them to honour their promise to legislate against SLAPPs. I am speaking out because Enough has intimidated people into silence, and rape charities are quiet because they do not have the financial means to take legal action—legal action that would distract them from their duties to survivors. What I have described today is a window into how our legal system is being weaponised to silence the vulnerable and punish those with the courage to tell the truth. We in this House, and the Government, must choose the side of victims and rape charities and make sure that individuals who commit rapes face the justice they deserve, instead of it being stolen by a company selling lies to women. It must end.
First, I thank the Leader of the House for his unfailing courtesy at the Dispatch Box, and for the meticulous manner in which he refers Members’ concerns to the appropriate Ministers. Whoever emerges as the leader of the Labour party, I very much hope that he will remain in his post.
I would not wish that on him. Given the Labour party’s manifesto commitments, some of us had rather hoped we might find in the King’s Speech a Bill to ban the proceeds of trophy hunting, something to do with hare coursing or improving farm animal welfare. The sad fact is that there was no such mention of any animal welfare issue whatsoever in the King’s Speech, and I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman addressed that. While I am on my feet, could I also say that, with the hospitality industry on its knees, now is not the moment to introduce a tourism tax?
Next week, can the Leader of the House produce a Government statement in response to the Hallett review on covid-19 vaccines? Lady Hallett recommended major reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme. The Government said that they were considering the matter, but it is now more than five years since thousands of people suffered severe loss, or in some cases bereavement, as a result of covid-19 vaccines. Justice must be done sooner rather than later.
Madison Chilcott is a student midwife from Bridgwater. She pays fees of £9,500 a year, and must complete a minimum of 2,300 unpaid clinical hours. She works 12-hour shifts at nights and weekends, while her protected learning time is routinely overridden to fill staffing gaps. Despite that, she and many student midwives face graduating into unemployment. This is happening during a national midwife shortage. Can we have a debate in Government time on the graduate guarantee made by the Health Secretary in August 2025, which induced many midwives to start training with what appears to have been a false guarantee of employment?
Twelve months ago, the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), attempted to cut the welfare bill and was sent packing by Labour Back Benchers. In the autumn, the Government had to get rid of the two-child benefit cap because of Labour Back Benchers. Is the truth not that the Secretary of State is incapable of reforming the welfare system because he does not have permission from his Back Benchers?
It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I praise all Members for their contributions; while I did not agree with all of them, I recognise the passion with which they were delivered on topics that Members care about. In particular, I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that Labour is taking this country in the wrong direction, which is a sentiment agreed with by the newly former Health Secretary, who said in his resignation letter that “where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift.” That is a damning indictment of a Government who are saying that they want to get Britain working again. The Conservatives are absolutely committed to getting Britain working again. We got a record 4 million more people in work between 2010 and 2024, which allowed millions more people to have the security of their own income, empowering them to own their own home and look after their families. [Interruption.] The Minister chunters from a sedentary position, but we created 800 new jobs a day in those 14 years. The situation has taken a dire turn since the change of Government. Since Labour took office, unemployment has risen to 5.2% and payroll jobs have reduced by 110,000. The Office for Budget Responsibility has even raised the unemployment rate forecast for 2026, 2027 and 2028. There is only one conclusion: Labour is letting people down and consigning more people on to welfare instead of good, honest work. I will focus particularly on young people and their prospects, where unfortunately an even bleaker picture is being painted. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, who said that this Government are failing young people. I have heard a lot of Members talk about getting young people back into work, but the youth unemployment rate is 15.9%—up by 2.7% since the Labour party took office. It has been in power for two years, and that has been the consequence. One in six young people are now unable to find a job. This Government are pushing more young people on to benefits, which has deeper long-term consequences. There are now nearly 1 million 18 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. Among graduates, the Centre for Social Justice estimates that around 700,000 people are out of work and claiming benefits, and the impacts of that cannot be overstated. Every month spent out of work means that people take more than they give to the state. I have been campaigning in local elections across Meriden and Solihull East, and I can tell hon. Members that young people want to work, because there is dignity and hope in work. Every month that a young person spends out of a job makes it harder for them to get back into employment. While their peers are developing critical skills in the workplace, those out of work fall behind. It also weakens their ability to save and put money away for the future, making it harder—for example—to save for their first home, for their family or for their retirement. The number of young people out of work is a calamity, and the Government must do much more to address it, but nothing they have set out has reassured me that they understand that. The Employment Rights Act, passed in the previous parliamentary Session, has already started to have a catastrophic impact on the jobs market. That disastrous piece of legislation has increased costs for businesses and discouraged hiring, especially of young people. Having listened to the previous speech, I say to Labour Members that business owners are not just there to be squeezed until their pips squeak—they are the ones who take the risk, invest and create the jobs. I will, of course, also challenge the Government in the educational space, because I believe they have been completely ineffective. Just this week, the Prime Minister has made new pledges on apprenticeships and skills in an effort to turn his failing premiership around. Perhaps he recognises what I do, because from the data on apprenticeships, the picture is mixed at best. The Department responsible for work should be a shining example of the Government’s commitment to more apprenticeships, but regrettably, it is far from it—the number of apprenticeship starts at the DWP has actually fallen. The Government’s broken promises on apprenticeships are best shown in relation to level 7 qualifications, which are high-quality pathways—[Interruption.] I am talking about level 7 qualifications; the Secretary of State may want to pay attention. Those high-quality pathways allow people to get into professions such as accountancy, engineering and architecture without accumulating the same debt as graduates. However, the Government continue to restrict level 7 funding for those over 22, meaning that they are missing out on those opportunities and also putting level 6 apprenticeships at risk. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is very audible. In opposition, when she was shadow Education Secretary, she promised graduates that they would pay less under Labour. That has turned out to be nothing but another broken promise, because not only is it now harder for graduates to get into work, tuition fees have gone up twice. Those who are paying those fees are now doing so with no promise of valued work at the end of it all. I also want to address the SEND Bill—the education for all Bill—proposed in the King’s Speech. Given the time I have today, I do not have the luxury of asking all the questions that parents have wanted me to pose to the Government, but there are a couple of questions that I do want to ask. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention from the Secretary of State.
The Government have claimed that the Bill will make generational reforms to the SEND system. The outlines of those proposals have been included in the White Paper, but parents are none the wiser. I have met a lot of parents, and despite the Government’s rhetoric, I see parents with more anxiety, not less. Just this Monday, I met a number of SEND parents from my constituency. All they want is for their children to have a chance at life, so I will ask the Minister a question that has been put to me by parents—perhaps she will address it when she responds. The consultation does not sufficiently address what will be done to help those 16 to 19-year-olds who can work to get into work. With all that is going on outside of the Chamber and in No. 10, if the Government are consumed by leadership contests and machinations, when will the legislation come before the House? This chaos will only further exacerbate the anxiety and anguish of parents and their children. I was told yesterday that the Government have actually been distributing briefing documents to their MPs to get supportive responses to their consultation. If the Government’s proposals for reform are so good, why are they trying to stack their own consultation?
I do not think the hon. Member was paying attention. What I said was that I worry that the consultation is being stacked, but parents want to see the legislation, because there is not enough clarity in the consultation and they do not have the answers to the questions they are asking. I certainly hope that the parents the hon. Member meets make that clear to him. With little indication that the Government will set out comprehensive plans to support young people, the Opposition have been busy drawing up their own proposals for an alternative King’s Speech. We have laid out comprehensive plans to help recruit thousands of new apprentices. Our apprenticeship guarantee will remove the funding cap for apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds. This will ensure that employers have fully funded access to training, helping 100,000 extra young people into work every year. In addition, we would encourage more employers to take on 18 to 21-year-olds by introducing a business rebate for investment in training and skills, or BRITS scheme. It would provide a new incentive of up to £5,000 for businesses to take on 18 to 21-year-old apprentices. In the higher education space, the Conservatives have clear plans to rebalance the system. We have a proud record of expanding higher education, but we also recognise that more needs to be done to address the growth of low-value courses. Some degrees have ended up becoming a poor deal for both taxpayers and graduates. They do not help young people into work and the bill ends up being footed by taxpayers, some of whom have not benefited from a university education. That is why our alternative King’s Speech lays out plans to get more people into apprenticeships using money saved from cutting low value, low outcome degrees.
We created more than 5 million apprentices. If we want young people to be hired, we need an economy that works for the businesses that hire them. I am sure that the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Paul Bristow, will be doing an excellent job in making sure that there is more investment in education and in young people. Alongside rebalancing the system, we are also looking to abolish real interest on plan 2 student loans, ending the unfair cycle whereby higher interest rates mean graduate debt rises faster than graduates can pay it off. Our proposals are much more comprehensive than those laid out by the Government. Labour’s plans to cap student loan repayments at 6% will leave graduates ripped off, paying interest above inflation. It shows that the Government do not have a plan for young people and will continue to tinker around the edges rather than make genuine, bold change. I will finish where I started, because the constant speculation about the Prime Minister’s future means that his Ministers will not be spending time looking at how to make a better deal for young people, whether that is boosting home ownership, reducing youth unemployment or getting the economy growing. In fact, just yesterday, I read reports of the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), asking the Prime Minister to set out a timetable for his departure. Now that the Health Secretary has resigned, I ask this Minister: does she support the Prime Minister?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to recognise the wonderful work that the Doorkeepers do around this House. I do not think they get enough credit, and I would like to ask for your wisdom on how I can put that on the record.
Thank you for bringing to our attention the fantastic work that the Doorkeepers do. I would personally like to put that on the record, mostly because I would not be able to do my job unless I acknowledge the work that they do. That is absolutely the right thing to do. Has the Minister finished her speech?
I hesitate to even raise this, but in case the Minister is anxious about time, we can—fortunately or unfortunately—run to 5.30 pm.
They say that a week is a long time in politics, yet during this short debate we have seen the Health Secretary leave the Government. Amid the open revolt and factional infighting, one thing remains abundantly clear: whoever will be steering the ship, this Labour Government lack both the courage and the political capital to confront the spiralling cost of welfare. We hear endlessly about the soft left, the hard left and the moderate left, but the story time and again with every Labour Government is that they eventually run out of everyone else’s money. The numbers are stark. We have a welfare bill projected to rise to over £103 billion by the end of the decade—a figure that continues to surpass the revenues that the Government receive in income tax—and more than 4 million people are now claiming personal independence payment. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to rise, and nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training. This is simply unsustainable. The Conservatives firmly believe in a safety net for those who genuinely need support, but what we have today is no longer a safety net; it is a fishing net that traps people rather than encourages them to stand on their own two feet. I have seen the value of this support at first hand. I grew up in a single-parent household with my two younger brothers. My mother could not read or write. I can remember us turning the sofa upside down at the end of the week to get loose change to put in the electricity meter. Labour Members often think that we on the Conservative Benches are far too privileged to understand real poverty, but that is simply not the case. Many of us on these Benches have experienced poverty in our own upbringings, and because of this lived experience we know where support is needed and where it is being abused. Sadly, we face a culture today in which some treat dependency as a way of life—a badge of honour, even—and in which, for generation after generation, families are boarding the benefits gravy train. We have all heard stories—perhaps in conversations on doorsteps during the recent local elections—of people claiming every benefit going, while ordering a Deliveroo every night and purchasing the latest 60-inch television. Those are luxuries that millions of hard-working constituents have to think twice about before buying. In our alternative King’s Speech, we have set out sweeping reforms that would end this welfare madness. Our welfare reform Bill would restore fairness, ensure that support goes to those who truly need it and ensure value for taxpayers’ money. We believe in the dignity of work and personal responsibility. We will ensure that benefits are restricted to British citizens, so that people coming to this country cannot simply ride on the coat-tails of British taxpayers. We will ensure that PIP is not awarded on the basis of lower-level health conditions that—let me put this bluntly—are just some of the normal challenges of everyday life that we all have to contend with. We will ensure that the people of 6 am Britain—the families who have to tighten their belts because of the spiralling cost of living—do not simply have to pay for the children of those who choose not to work. We will ensure, through the introduction of a household benefit cap, that people are always better off in work than out of work. These reforms are essential if we want a fair society and economic prosperity for our country. However, welfare reform must go hand in hand with reforms that encourage businesses to get people back into work. That is why I am proud that the Conservative party has set out exactly what we will do to get Britain working again, and our approach is a direct contrast to the actions of the current Government. From the hiking of jobs-destroying national insurance to the burdensome regulations introduced in the Employment Rights Act, these rising costs are forcing businesses to think twice before hiring extra staff. This Government have become a barrier to economic growth. Labour is no longer the party that its name suggests; it has become the welfare party. As our alternative King’s Speech makes clear, we would repeal damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, from the hospitality “banter ban” to the absurd qualifying periods, in order to give businesses the confidence to hire once again. We would back our private sector—the actual wealth creators—and we would not bow to trade union demands. Most importantly, our plan would tackle youth unemployment. It is shameful that one third of graduates are not in graduate-level jobs and youth unemployment stands at a staggering 18%, and that this Government seem utterly uninterested in doing anything about it. A future Conservative Government, on the other hand, would back our young people by expanding the number of high-quality apprenticeships under our apprenticeship guarantee and by showing young people that there are multiple training routes—not just through a degree—to build a successful career and life. This Government have no plan for welfare reform, no plan for jobs, and no plan for growth, but the Conservatives do. Our alternative King’s Speech shows that we are serious about governing, restoring fairness and rewarding hard work, and about getting Britain working again.
As is traditional, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, in that—as he said himself—the judgment in the Dillon case is a complex one. We on the Conservative Benches certainly agree. I suspect that this judgment will be pored over and, indeed, argued over at considerable length, not least in the other place should Labour’s benighted troubles Bill ever make it there. I will just make a point about immunity, and the concept that lay behind the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I was serving on the Select Committee on Defence under my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—an excellent Chairman—when, in 2017, we produced an extremely detailed report on this complex issue. In fairness, I think the Secretary of State has read that report. What was proposed by the Select Committee is akin to what the legacy Act turned out to be, and that in turn was based on the South African truth and reconciliation commission. We never legislated for absolute immunity for anybody; we legislated for conditional immunity, so that if someone who was involved in a troubles-related fatality came forward to give evidence to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—I will return to the commission in a moment—the commission could judge whether they had fully co-operated with it, such as by revealing the burial place of one of the so-called disappeared. If the commission believed that that individual had genuinely co-operated in good faith, they would be granted immunity. If not—if the commission felt that that person was lying, dissembling or trying to hide something—the commission could recommend that a prosecution still go ahead. Contrary to the Government’s position, the legacy Act and ICRIR, which the Act established, only ever allowed for conditional immunity. It is important to put that on the record this morning. I have three specific questions for the Secretary of State about his statement. First, will he say a bit more about the relationship between the Dillon judgment and the Windsor framework? He touched on it, but can he expand? Secondly, as he knows, many of the cases brought against veterans were funded by legal aid in Northern Ireland. He referred very briefly to the implications for legal aid, but can he say something more about that? Thirdly, we heard at business questions a few minutes ago that the Armed Forces Bill will be returning to the House in Committee on 2 June. I was quite involved with that Bill. Under its programme motion, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has two days for Committee and remaining stages. When do the Government plan to bring it back to the Floor of the House? Perhaps he could answer that specifically. I am sad to say that Labour has been cynical today. I humbly remind the Secretary of State that when we debated and voted on the related remedial order back on 21 January, almost a third of the Labour parliamentary party abstained, famously including the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). As we all know, he is otherwise occupied today. Even the current Prime Minister abstained. He blew the whistle and sent his troops over the top to vote for this benighted legislation that he did not have the courage to vote for himself. That brings me to encapsulating exactly what is going on today. While this Government prepare to tear themselves to pieces over a mixture of post-electoral fear and vaulting ambition, what is the Labour party’s absolute priority this morning? It is to advance legislation to facilitate the prosecution of brave Northern Ireland veterans, many of whom gave their lives to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland—in essence, to defend all of this around us today. That sums up the Labour party. It has clearly chosen today as a not-so-good day to bury bad news. The very bad news is that despite all its protestations to the contrary, Labour would rather help Sinn Féin chase those who fought for their country. The public will see this for what it is: not a complex legal treatise, but a disgrace.
I thank the Minister for advanced sight of his statement and for his recognition of the importance of working together across the House to make our country safer. The attacks against the Jewish community in recent months have been devastating. As the Leader of the Opposition and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have said, this is a national emergency. The Government noted that the raising of the terror threat level was not solely a consequence of the attack in Golders Green, but we can all see how this community has been targeted. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families. We have to speak honestly about what is going on. We have to call out hate when we see it. Jewish people in Britain are 12 times more likely to be a victim of hate crime than any other group. We cannot allow this to go on. That requires not just warm words but robust action. That means authorising the surveillance powers usually reserved for counter-terrorism, which the Minister referenced today, to identify and prevent antisemitic attacks that are being planned. Furthermore, foreign nationals who express antisemitism, support extremism or endorse terrorism should be deported. The Government should place a moratorium on hate-fuelled pro-Palestine marches, because we can see the way in which they are being used as a cover to promote violence and intimidation against Jewish people. Furthermore, although I welcome the Government’s announcement of legislation in the King’s Speech, they need to act at speed. Steps need to be taken to proscribe groups that fuel this hatred, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This was recommended almost 12 months ago. I hope it is now a top priority for the Government. Conservative Members on this side of the House stand ready to support its implementation. Ultimately, the measures outlined do not begin to cover the full extent of the action needed to stop this evil. We need to tackle the underlying ideologies that threaten our national security. It is therefore critical that the Government focus on the ideologies that pose the greatest threat. As I told the House during the statement on antisemitic attacks in April, 75% of MI5’s terrorism caseload relates to Islamist extremism, and 94% of terrorist murders over the past 25 years have been perpetrated by Islamist extremists. However, we have seen a decrease in Prevent referrals relating to Islamist extremism. Only 10% of the current Prevent caseload relates to Islamist extremism. Can the Minister explain what more the Government will do to address that disparity and ensure that we tackle Islamist extremism effectively? Equally, talking about the threat posed by China is not an abstract matter. There are people in this country who have had bounties placed on them and who face threats because of the Chinese regime. Police officer David Wilson recently published his report into Chinese organised crime links to the Chinese state, including its intelligence services, diplomatic service and the United Front Work Department. The report demonstrates how Chinese intelligence services, and even diplomats, work with organised crime networks to supress dissidents and intimidate British-Chinese communities and students into compliance. I therefore ask the Government, as many of my colleagues have before, to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. We share the Government’s concerns about the continued threat posed by Russia. Will the Minister join me in condemning the fact that Russia has issued an arrest warrant for our former colleague Ben Wallace? Does he agree that this is totally unacceptable, and will he endeavour to look into the matter? The increase in the threat level illustrates the risks posed to this country. Many of the measures set out by the Minister will be welcomed, but I believe we need a fundamental shift that reflects the scale of the threats facing the country, and particularly the Jewish community. We must maintain an absolute focus on stamping out the ideologies that fuel hatred and undermine our national security. I believe that is how we pay tribute to those who have been victims of these devastating terrorist attacks.
Last Sunday, along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I attended the annual service for lost fishermen at Grimsby minster, organised by the Fishermen’s Mission. The timing was unfortunate because the EFL scheduled Grimsby Town’s play-off game for the same afternoon, and despite being only 10 minutes late to the game, I missed two goals—but that is by the way. Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Fishermen’s Mission on the work that it does? Although it is over 30 years since the deep-sea fishing industry in Grimsby went into decline, there are still many families affected by the loss of brave fishermen who went out in all weathers.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Unlike others, I have not had the benefit of reading it beforehand, so I hope that he will forgive me when I say that it is very high protein and will take a little while to process. To pick up on the remarks he just made to the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), with whom I serve on the Defence Committee, about bringing forward more provisions in Committee to respond to veterans’ concerns, the Bill was carried over on a promise that that would be done, so will he update the House on the status of discussions with veterans’ groups to give us some reassurance? Is he in a position to say that they now fully agree with the provisions to protect veterans, which were so lacking in previous versions of the Bill?
I thank the Minister for his statement today, and for the gravity with which he has approached this statement and his job while others in Westminster are being distracted by noises off. I completely agree with him that it is totally unacceptable for a foreign state to be conducting shadow policing operations on UK soil, and I welcome that he said that the Foreign Secretary has called in the Chinese ambassador. However, he will also be aware that, if press reports are to be believed, the Chinese embassy in London issued a statement on Sunday in which it called on the UK Government to “stop wantonly arresting and convicting Chinese citizens” on “trumped-up” charges. It is clear that we are miles away from one another, so will the Minister encourage the Foreign Secretary to throw the book at them?
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous with his time—although, as Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out, we have quite a lot of it. The UK Government used to have a golden share in Heathrow airport. However, that was ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice in 2003. Given that the Government broadly want the same thing as any promoter might want, inasmuch as they want Heathrow expansion, that would suggest that the Government are at the point of maximum influence in this build-up phase. Post-Brexit, will the Minister consider making any progress with the third runway conditional on the British Government getting back their golden share, so that we can control a great deal more of what goes on at Heathrow at Government level?
As the Secretary of State has laid out, the Supreme Court in its Dillon judgment was not able to rule on whether the immunity provisions of the legacy Act were compatible with the European convention, because the Government withdrew that appeal when they came to power. But the right hon. Gentleman must recognise the fear and anger of our soldiers and veterans in response to the changes that the Government have proposed. If the Government felt it was at all possible that these protections for our soldiers and veterans might be compatible with the ECHR, why not test that in the courts? If the Government are convinced that it is not, what better case could there be for leaving?
Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
I thank the Leader of the House very much for announcing the business, and I welcome all colleagues back to the House. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating His Majesty the King not only on the Gracious Speech yesterday, but on his glorious triumph in the United States of America, in particular reminding our American cousins of the joy not of monarchy, which they know well enough from recent experience and over the years, but of a genuinely constitutional monarchy. The House will know of my obsession with building NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology & Engineering—our new university in Hereford. I hope that colleagues across the House will join me in celebrating its second graduation ceremony last Saturday. Its flagship degree was recently accredited for chartered certification by the prestigious Institution of Engineering and Technology, making its graduates, in that sense, holders of degrees equal to those to be found at Oxbridge or Russell group universities. Its latest crop of graduates have gone on to companies including Airbus, Hitachi Energy and GKN, and there is huge interest from applicants in its new bachelor’s and master’s degrees in autonomous robotics and drone technologies, which start in September. If Members will excuse the pun, as an engineering institution, NMITE is really starting to motor. I strongly encourage any Members who might be interested and wish to know more to drop me a line, because this route to local economic growth is of great potential significance. It is fair to say that we have known quieter weeks than the couple since we last convened. What have we discovered during that period? A previously undisclosed gift of £5 million from a foreign cryptocurrency donor to the leader of Reform UK is now being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We are reassured that it is entirely unrelated to that hon. Member’s recent interest in investing in Bitcoin. The leader of the Green party, Zack Polanski, has admitted that he failed to pay council tax, was not in fact a spokesman for the Red Cross and was never a full member of the National Council for Hypnotherapy, which I am sure will come as a great relief to women across the country. He must be an acute embarrassment to my neighbour, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), and we thank her for her resilience. All that news will come as a surprise to precisely no one. Lest we forget, nearly 100 Labour Members of Parliament, including four Ministers, have gone public with their opposition to the Prime Minister remaining in office. Three Cabinet Ministers have called on him to set a public timetable for his departure. Few Labour MPs, if any, believe that the Prime Minister will lead them into the next election. Mr Speaker, you will be aware, I am sure, of the famous lines: “The boy stood on the burning deck Whence all but he had fled”. It may be that the Leader of the House is the last person to occupy the position of standing on the burning deck when all but he has fled. Others are fleeing, and it is astonishing that Buckingham Palace had reportedly been forced to ask whether the King’s Speech was, in fact, really going ahead. Even now, I notice the slight sparsity of Members—actually, on all sides of the House—in this earlier sitting, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is widely reported to be preparing a bid for the leadership of the Labour party. King Lear asks in his bewilderment: “Who is it that can tell me who I am?” So it is with the Prime Minister. He does not know and nor, it seems, does anyone around him. Amid all this Westminster madness, it falls to me to insert a nugget of something that actually affects every Member of this House in their constituencies—a matter of great local importance. The House will know that the Construction Industry Training Board is meant to be the guardian of construction skills in this country, funded by a statutory levy on the industry. Yet employer confidence is rapidly being eroded by the CITB’s recent behaviour. An Ofsted “requires improvement” judgment, the Farmer review’s call for a “fundamental reset”, poor communications with levy payers, a rarely updated website and a slow, cumbersome booking system all point in the same direction. At the same time, firms report duplication, delay and poor value for money. For some courses—forklift training, for example—the CITB route can cost more than twice as much as the non-CITB route, take considerably longer and yet lead to precisely the same qualification. Many of the courses are not optional. Small construction firms must keep up with industry standards and legal health and safety requirements. They need a system that is fast, clear and good value, not one that makes compliance harder, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that are so crucial to our economy. Meanwhile, the levy is a tax in all but name that must be paid regardless of the services offered. The CITB has expenditures of nearly £300 million, but gives less than half of that away in grants, while its wage bill and headcount steadily rise. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Ministers to write to me explaining how they intend to restore employer confidence in the CITB, particularly among small construction companies, improve course access and value for money, and reform an organisation that appears to be losing its way?
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), I met two trainee midwives in a surgery just last week in my Norfolk constituency. They are training at the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, where 250 student midwives are going after just 50 places. What has happened to the graduate guarantee?
I respect the Secretary of State. He has talked at some length about what is wrong with the welfare system, but the fact is that there is no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech. I reckon he is stuck between a rock and a hard place: he knows the benefits bill is out of control; he knows that the public are sick of seeing their taxes go on ever higher welfare handouts; he even knows how the savings could be made because I have told him [Laughter.] They are laughing, but they are the problem. The Secretary of State also knows that the MPs behind him will have none of it. With the Prime Minister clinging on by a thread, no wonder there was no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech. Here is the problem: failure to grip welfare puts the Government dangerously out of touch with people out there—the people he, I and all of us are here to serve. Let me read from an email that I received recently from a constituent; I will call her Sandra. She says: “I am writing to you with utter frustration. We work so hard and for what? What is the point of working please tell me. To watch everyone else do nothing and get paid more than you! I’ve done the benefit calculation online and I’d be better off quitting my job…I’d be better off getting universal credit…how is that normal or fair?” My constituent is far from alone. I have heard that feeling expressed time and again since I have been shadow Secretary of State—on the doorsteps, in the pub, in the supermarket, on the train and all over social media. Beyond Westminster, people are despairing. Family breadwinners are losing their jobs, homes are being sold to pay the bills and young people are losing hope. Millions have drifted out of work, and for many, claiming benefits simply makes more sense. For those who are working, each month they are seeing their earnings disappearing in higher taxes and higher bills, with nothing left over. No wonder they are fed up. People who are doing the right thing are paying for people who have opted out. And what is Labour doing about it? Absolutely nothing. The Government are making a big mistake because the bald fact is that alarm- clock Britain is sick of paying out for “Benefits Street”.
I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman, but Labour is in charge now. It has had nearly two years and nothing is changing. You do not have to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker; here are the numbers. Over 8 million people are claiming universal credit, almost 4 million people are claiming sickness benefits and over 600,000 households are getting over £32,000 a year in benefits. That is more than the take-home pay of the average British worker. Ninety-one thousand households are getting over £50,000, which is enough to put them in the top 10% of our nation’s earners, and 16,000 are getting over £60,000 in benefits every single year. A person who works would have to earn over £70,000 to have that. All that is costing the country £140 billion a year. People know when they are being taken for a ride. Yesterday, the Prime Minister had a chance—one last chance—to hit reset, reverse those trends, get people off benefits and bring down the welfare bill. But with his back against the wall, it is no surprise that the Prime Minister’s King’s Speech contained none of that. While hundreds of thousands of people struggle to find work, the Prime Minister is only interested in protecting one job: his own. Yes, the Secretary of State can claim that he is doing something—his work experience programmes, his youth schemes, the savings-free Timms review and all that—but we all know that that is just tinkering at the edges. The Government tried welfare reform last summer and failed. Now, they have given up altogether. They had no plan when they got into office and they still have no plan now, and that matters. For every day of inaction, hard-working taxpayers pay the price. Doing nothing costs money. The welfare bill will reach £170 billion by the end of the decade and that money could be so much better spent on things such as defence or making our streets safer or—think of this—it could be left in people’s pockets for them to spend.
The hon. Gentleman wants me to give way. Does he have a welfare savings plan? If so, let us hear it.
Oh dear; what a shame. There were no ideas for savings there at all. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that will get him a job under the next Labour leader, I am afraid that he will have to keep trying. Labour claims to be the party of working people, but the facts do not back that up. Labour always leaves office with unemployment higher than when it arrives, and it is on track to do that again. There are now over 300,000 more people unemployed than when this Government came to power. Their policies—the jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act—have actively killed jobs. Now, as mentioned in yesterday’s King’s Speech, we have the regulating for growth Bill. You couldn’t make it up. Employers are being asked to swim against the tide with bricks in their pockets, and now the Government are planning to make it worse. Many businesses have stopped hiring; others are letting people go. Businesses tell me that they are getting hundreds of applications for jobs that they might have struggled to fill a couple of years ago. No wonder that there are 700,000 graduates on out-of-work benefits. Youth unemployment is at over 14%. This is a disaster. Young people want to get their lives going, earn money, pay their own way, save for a car; instead, hundreds of thousands are stuck. The Secretary of State knows that. That is why he has frantically announced a flurry of schemes at the cost of £2.5 billion. Obviously, a work placement is better than nothing, but the young people I speak to want jobs, not Government-funded work experience. Less than two years ago, the country voted us out and Labour Members in. They have laughed and jeered at us, but they are not laughing now because they have found out that governing is hard. They promised voters change, but the only change that most people have seen is that they are poorer. Who knows what they got up to in opposition? Clearly, it was not working out what they would do if they won the election. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is chuntering. I know that yesterday he called the Leader of the Opposition “rude” when, actually, she was just telling the truth. He does not like to hear the truth. Maybe he should do a little less talking from the Front Bench and a little more listening. Being in power is not an end in itself; what matters is what someone does with the power that voters trust them with. I am sure that many of those on the Government Benches care about our country, but caring is not enough. The question is: what are they going to do to fix it? If the King’s Speech that we are debating today tells us anything, it is that they do not know. The only things they can think of will make the situation worse; and on welfare, they have given up. I believe in learning lessons whenever one can. One lesson that Labour Members should learn is to make good use of time in opposition; work hard, think hard and make a plan. That is what we have been doing, and that is why we have been able to set out an alternative King’s Speech, which has more in it than the actual King’s Speech. Take our plans for welfare—and to be clear, these are just our plans so far. We have a plan to reform welfare and make £23 billion in savings. We will bring back the two-child benefit cap, stop handouts to foreign nationals, stop sickness benefits for anxiety and ADHD, bring back face-to-face assessments, ban “sickfluencers”, reform fit notes and restore the household benefit cap to its original purpose of ensuring work always pays better than benefits. No more gaming the system, no more free cars for tennis elbow or acne—Britain will no longer be a cash machine for the world. People have had enough. They can see our welfare system is not working. It is not even working for people who are seriously ill or disabled. We are not keeping our plan secret; it is all out there. Other parties are adopting our policies. Reform, for instance, has not been shy about doing so, although it has been confused, and its Members are not here today. The Secretary of State should feel free to do so too, and though the MPs behind him will hate it, we are here to help. This is the most surreal King’s Speech debate I have ever taken part in. People out there are angry, frustrated and fed up. They can see the country is not working. They want the Government to fix it, but Labour are too busy working out who should be in charge. The saddest thing is that it will not make a difference. They can change their team captain, but they are still the same team. I have heard them cheer on taxes for farmers, family businesses and schools. I have heard them cheer for lifting the two-child cap. I have heard them argue against welfare savings. They think you fix poverty by giving out free breakfasts, paid for by people who are struggling to pay the bills themselves. Labour’s answer is always the same: tax more and spend more of other people’s money, and it is the wrong answer. Sometimes in life you have to pick a side. We have picked one: we are on the side of people who get up each day and go to work. They are doing the right thing, and we back them. Sometimes things go wrong and people need help. That is why welfare should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Labour have made their choice: it is to carry on as if nothing is wrong. Yesterday’s King’s Speech was a chance to fix things, and they blew it.
In that case, can the Secretary of State credibly stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions and of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on employment? The Government are now paying companies to employ young people because of the mess they made.
The energy independence—or dependence, as I think we can probably call it—Bill will make us more reliant on overseas imports of oil and gas. We will use oil and gas for many years because our system needs it. The Bill bans new licences in the North sea, making us more reliant on imports. Does the right hon. Lady really welcome that?
I completely agree that we must protect British industries such as steel and oil and gas refining—they are all vital. The carbon tax is a reason why these industries are declining and moving overseas. From what the hon. Member is saying, it feels like he agrees that we should get rid of the carbon tax. Is that correct?
The level of fear felt by British Jews is nothing short of a national emergency and requires the most urgent and rapid action. The last time that the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box, just before the last Session ended, I raised with him the case of the south Buckinghamshire Jewish community. While I welcome his commitment to increased funds, they still find themselves falling between the cracks for grant funding, because they do not have a building of their own and meet in different venues from time to time. I have sent him the details, so may I plead with him to look at that issue very urgently? Will he help me find a way to ensure that all my constituents and British Jews from neighbouring constituencies who are members of the south Buckinghamshire Jewish community can genuinely feel safe and that action comes very rapidly?
I am very grateful for the Minister’s commitment to engagement. Right now, there is traffic chaos in the Egham and Pooley Green area. I am opposed to the third runway. It will make the transport situation in the north of my constituency worse, and it will cause problems of increased noise and air pollution. Will he engage with our local communities, so that he can hear from them how much we do not want it?
Notwithstanding my points about the third runway, the success of Heathrow is incredibly important to my constituents in providing jobs and economic activity locally. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s response to the concerns about kerosene supply, which impacts Heathrow and our economy?
I invite the Minister to Egham as part of his engagement on looking at surface access, where he will be able to see the carnage caused by the level crossings and the benefits of removing the level crossings and having a direct rail link from Egham to Heathrow. While he is there, he will probably also be able to hear the planes overhead and see the impact the noise is already having on that community.
The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech. One of my big concerns, about which we need to be talking far more, is that jobs for young people in the 18 to 24 category are being replaced by automation and artificial intelligence. That is especially true for young people who are in the age category coming out of university: they are shackled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt and the graduate jobs that they had hoped to get are now being automated. What does he think that the Government can do to ensure that the cohort coming out of university and coming into the workplace have good career pathways in front of them?