5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Ensuring that we have the right capabilities and resources to respond in rural communities often requires technology and capital investment. It is important to put that into the mix as we see what the funding settlement will look like.
I will make a little progress. The Government’s latest settlement takes things a step too far. Huge concerns have been raised about the impact on frontline services and on the safety of the public and our brave firefighters. Through the dedication of our firefighters and its sound leadership, Cleveland Fire Brigade has one of the fastest response times in the country to fires in the home, as well as one of the highest rates of home fire safety visits. It serves almost 580,000 people, from urban town centres to rural and coastal communities, as well as Teesside’s significant industrial assets. Cleveland faces a series of unique challenges. It is a small force, less able to spread or absorb costs through economies of scale. It serves a disproportionately large and complex industrial landscape, covering petrochemical sites, heavy manufacturing and complex infrastructure. It serves an area with significant pockets of deprivation, which are linked to higher incident rates.
Cross-border support and mutual aid is vital. It is important to understand the profile of those areas and where those demands take us when we invest in our fire services as we should. Deprivation is linked to higher incident rates, greater vulnerabilities and an increased need for community safety interventions. Cleveland has long been associated with higher levels of deliberate fires; at times it has earned the label of UK arson capital. That places a disproportionate demand on prevention work as well as frontline response. It is among the busiest non-metropolitan fire brigades in the country and is getting busier. That unique mix means that the financial settlement is uniquely harmful to the safety of firefighters and the public in our community. It stretches them to breaking point. Steve Wright, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has said that our fire services face a real-terms cut that puts lives at risk. When someone calls 999, they are in the panic of an emergency. It could be a fire in their home or community, a traffic incident or someone drowning. They deserve nothing less than a quick, fully staffed and fully equipped response. This settlement puts that at risk.
I could not agree more. As the Fire Brigades Union puts it, these cuts are putting lives at risk. The inability to respond to the increasing number of fires and hazards has real consequences for real people out there in our communities. Cleveland Fire Brigade is currently facing a significant deficit. Even if council taxpayers are hit with the highest possible increase in precept, Cleveland’s medium-term financial strategy shows a three-year deficit of £1.2 million.
First, we have to see central Government funding in place to ensure that we can run safe and effective fire services. Secondly, within that funding envelope we have to ensure that local fire authorities spend the money wisely. In recent years, many of them have looked at those efficiencies, but we are now getting to the point at which we need to go further and the Government need to step up. Like other businesses and organisations, our fire brigades have been hit by the national insurance increase and spiralling energy costs. We need to ensure that our firefighters receive a fair pay settlement. If the fire precept is not increased in the coming years, the funding gap in Cleveland could rise to nearly £4 million. The answer is not simply to increase council tax even further. In my part of the world, Stockton’s Labour council has already increased council tax by 54% since 2016. It is for this Labour Government to fund our fire services properly and to fix the apparently “fair” funding formula, which is damaging Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I am sure that the Minister will say that Cleveland’s core spending power has increased, but as the chief fire officer told me himself, it is nowhere near enough to meet the increasing cost pressures.
I could not agree more. More than ever, we are seeing fire services that are lean and efficient, having undergone all sorts of savings. We have now got to the point at which there is no fat and we are hitting the bone. We cannot go on like this without real consequences for public safety. These funding decisions have real consequences for Cleveland, including a likely reduction in frontline firefighters and cuts to the number of fire appliances. Demand on our firefighters is rising. It is not acceptable to ask them to do even more with even less. It is not just our fire brigades that are under pressure. I have also heard from Cleveland Mountain Rescue, a hugely valued voluntary mountain rescue team that provides vital cover at fell races and mountain bike events. Are the Government thanking it for their incredible service and commitment? No, they are hitting it with Care Quality Commission registration and inspection regimes: more bureaucracy, more red tape and more costs. If the mountain rescue team is forced to reduce its services as a result, that will put yet more pressure on our local fire brigades. Has the Minister considered the consequences of these changes and the impact that they could have on fire services? There is a broader point here: whether it is Cleveland Fire Brigade facing funding pressures or Cleveland Mountain Rescue facing new bureaucracy, the Government must support the people who protect the public, not make their job harder. By incident per head of population, Cleveland Fire Brigade is one of the busiest non-metropolitan fire services in the country. It attends six times as many deliberate fires as the national average. Last year alone, it saw a 25% increase in arson and deliberate fire incidents, which cause huge concern within our communities. The Government’s “fair funding” approach is neither fair nor reflective of need. It systematically disadvantages places such as Stockton-on-Tees and the wider Cleveland area. It creates unacceptable risks for emergency response and public safety, because it fails to recognise local need. Factors such as individual risk, level of deprivation and geographic complexity must be given a proper weighting.
The hon. Gentleman has the pleasure of representing a beautiful part of the world. Sherborne is a beautiful patch that needs proper fire protection. He is right. We have talked about deprivation and the challenges that industrial sites pose, but knowing how many people live in an area and how many homes need to be protected by the fire service is pretty fundamental. We need to get that right. The unfair funding settlement could mean fire engines arriving at emergencies without enough crew to respond effectively and save lives, or, worse still, engines not leaving stations at all because there are no firefighters to staff them. Last month, Stockton council passed a motion highlighting that the Government’s approach to public service funding has failed to deliver genuinely fair or needs-based funding for fire and rescue services, as well as for policing and local government. A letter has been sent by the council to outline those concerns and to set out the stark reality of the situation. However, we have yet to receive a response. Will the Minister confirm whether she is in discussions with the Treasury about the challenges facing our fire services, and explain what action will be taken to properly fund Cleveland and Durham fire brigades? If the issue is not addressed, it will force difficult decisions on staffing, equipment and service delivery, and ultimately shift the burden of national funding failures on to local residents. The Government have increased taxes to record levels. The Chancellor’s first two Budgets have raised taxes by £36 billion and £26 billion, respectively, pushing the overall tax burden to a historic high, yet we have seen cuts to the number of police officers on our streets, and now potential cuts to our fire services.
Certainly there are the pressures of the summer and the consequences for rural communities. Fire authorities across the country are also having to make incredibly tough decisions about what they resource and the people they can employ. It is a pressure point that is moving at a hell of a pace and we need a quick response to the challenge. I hope the Minister will be able to provide answers and reassurance on some of the points that people have raised. What are the Government planning to do to properly support Cleveland and Durham fire brigades and deal with their significant financial shortfalls? How will the Minister and the Government fix the fair funding formula to ensure that communities such as mine in Stockton and those across Teesside are treated fairly? If we fail to fund our fire services properly, we put lives at risk. Firefighters in our communities have raised the alarm repeatedly and their concerns cannot be ignored. The service responsible for protecting us is being asked to do too much with too little. I urge the Minister to carefully consider the points that have been raised, and to work with colleagues to deliver a financial settlement that is fair, forward looking and reflective of the unique challenges faced by Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I urge her to listen to firefighters, fire chiefs and local residents in communities who are deeply concerned, to invest in our fire services and to keep us all safe.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury will know that our financial services industry is a shining example of our international economic might. However, overinterpretation of rules and regulations has led to banks being nervous of taking risks, and that has slowed growth in the City and holds up international trade. For example, overinterpretation of anti-money laundering rules means that foreign inward remittances can take up to two weeks to clear into a UK bank account, while poor classification of risk-rated assets potentially starves businesses of growth debt capital. Will the Economic Secretary please assure the House that this ever-unnecessary tightening of the rules will be addressed in the financial services Bill, due to be announced in the King’s Speech?
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about crossing the Rubicon, given that the Government are taking mandation powers to interfere in people’s savings and assets. We are talking about pension funds here, but once that Rubicon is crossed, there is no reason why the Government would not feel that they could start mandating how investment trusts or other types of savings schemes invest. This issue is not just about pensions; it is about the fundamental relationship between the state and private individuals.
I echo the voices of MPs from across the House, particularly the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), in asking why the Prime Minister does not refer himself to the Committee of Privileges. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he whipping his MPs against a House motion? As you know full well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Committee of Privileges and the Committee on Standards are there to judge us and our conduct in this House. We sign a code of conduct when we become MPs, and those two Committees are the Select Committees that judge our conduct in the House. The Foreign Affairs Committee and others hold the Government to account, but those two Committees are the only ones that hold MPs to account. Why has the Prime Minister not taken the leadership that he has demanded of others time and again, and not referred himself to the Committee of Privileges? He has demanded that others resign for far more trivial matters. He has demanded that others be referred to the Committee of Privileges or the Committee on Standards, but why have the rules changed for him? We could spend another afternoon laboriously analysing who did what, and when—another week of the Prime Minister telling us what he did not know and was not responsible for, and that the buck stops anywhere but here. This is from a man who has made a career of standing on the moral high ground and damning others for behaviour that he is now demonstrating. He has demanded that others do the honourable thing—something that we now see he is clearly incapable of doing himself. Instead, he has chosen this painful spectacle and is clinging on until those sitting behind him or beside him inevitably dispense with his tarnished services, which we all know they will do soon. I note that many are absent from the Front Bench—on full-time leadership manoeuvres as we speak, perhaps. I do not wish to condemn the Prime Minister further, only to offer my genuine sympathy on a basic human level for the embarrassment and shame that he must be feeling underneath the veneer of virtue that he has spent decades cultivating and that is now crumbling to dust with his every word—his every defection, his every desperate excuse. What goes around, comes around. For the Prime Minister, it has come around, right here, right now. It is an intensely sad and embarrassing sight. For that, he does not deserve my condemnation—only pity.
I echo the words of the Leader of the House, and thank the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee for contributing to these motions, which are broadly very sensible.
I am not quite sure how to follow that speech, but I hope that the Whips were listening to that job application by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). In the history of Leaders of the Opposition in this place, no one was quicker to demand investigations, no one was more willing to take a pious, high-and-mighty view, no one was faster to demand resignations and no one talked more about accountability than the current Prime Minister. He claimed to the whole country that he was a man of morals, principles and high character. In opposition, he portrayed himself as the moral arbiter and the font of all things just. Now that he is in power, with the threat of an investigation hanging over him, his true self has been revealed. There was much evidence of the Prime Minister’s failings prior to the Peter Mandelson affair, but this scandal has truly exposed him for all that he is and is not. In the Prime Minister’s efforts to reject and supress an investigation into this torrid affair, he has renounced all those claims he made to be a man of morals, principles, conviction, honour and all the other similar words he lifted from the dictionary without really understanding their meaning. It is apparent that, in opposition, the Prime Minister said what he thought needed to be said, not what he meant. The litany of broken promises over which he has presided since assuming office are a system, not a bug, because this Prime Minister did not come into office with a plan, a vision or anything he would stick by. He told the country what he thought they wanted to hear, with no intention of keeping his word or delivering. In the Peter Mandelson scandal, he is showing who he really is: a Prime Minister with no substance. If the House believes that this sounds like a partisan political attack, let us not forget that it was this very scandal that provoked the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, to call for the Prime Minister to go. It is the handling of this scandal that caused Scottish Labour to lose all faith in the Prime Minister’s judgment and his leadership. I notice that Scottish Labour MPs are conveniently looking at their phones at this moment. At the very least, the Prime Minister could have come forward and admitted all he got wrong here, and thrown open every document so that the public got the transparency they deserve. Then, as some small consolation for his failings, there would be some accountability. Yet today he still refuses even to deliver that. He rejects further investigation and he gives the distinct appearance of someone afraid of scrutiny, running scared of what may yet come out, and unable to accept the scale of the mistakes made during this scandal. If this position does not change, then it is up to Labour Back Benchers to show what they stand for. Will they let a Prime Minister of this political colour or any other blatantly disregard accountability and transparency? Will they let a Prime Minister refuse the scrutiny that the public expect when a scandal like this occurs? Will they let a Prime Minister get away with such a grotesque error of judgment as appointing Peter Mandelson? It is their choice today. Labour MPs have the opportunity to show that they are not all of the same lot as the Prime Minister. They can demonstrate that they meant some of the lofty promises they were elected on, or they can continue to back a Prime Minister who has lost his way and lost the country. If an investigation happens or not, this scandal has already told the public everything they need to know about this Prime Minister. Even if they cannot see it and even if the parliamentary Labour party do not accept it for many months to come, it is over. Refusing investigations, as he is trying to do today, only confirms what is already apparent: the Prime Minister is not who he claimed to be in opposition, the principles he claimed to hold are gone, his commitment to accountability was a nonsense, the morals he espoused were a con trick and the piety was all pretend. The Prime Minister’s promise to the British people was “change”, and change is what they want now. They want a change of position today, which should not be hard, given the example that this Government have set during their short term in office. What is one more U-turn among dozens? The British people want a change in the culture at the heart of this Government, so that they do not have to meekly go along with the Prime Minister’s appointment of people like Peter Mandelson. The people of this country have now had a good look at the Prime Minister, and they no longer see what they thought they did when he was in opposition. Even the Prime Minister must now look back at his own words and wonder, “Who was that?” His record has not lived up to his rhetoric, the standards that he claimed to hold, or the promises that he made to the British people. If the Prime Minister today whips his MPs to vote against an inquiry, he may survive in office a little while longer, but it will not change what he has done, or stop the British public demanding change.
If this motion is passed by the House, it will allow an investigation into the integrity of the Prime Minister and the decisions that he has made, and it is Labour MPs and the Prime Minister who are blocking that investigation. We are grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing this motion to be debated today. He has decided that it meets the standard required to be debated, and it is for MPs like the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), my constituency neighbour, to decide whether they will stand with their constituents and not block this investigation. We all want answers. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, he should have no fear of this investigation. I will happily support the motion to allow this investigation to proceed. I congratulate the hon. Members for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on their very brave decision to defy the Labour Whip and support this motion. I remember being a Government MP and sitting in the far corner of the Chamber, having just voted for the Owen Paterson motion. I never felt so dirty or disappointed in myself as when I made the decision to vote in that way. I was following the Whip and my party colleagues at the time. We thought it was the right thing to do, but it was the wrong thing to do; my gut told me that, but I was just not brave enough to make that decision. A few months later, a similar moment arose, and I had to decide whether to follow the Whip or follow my conscience. I followed my conscience and resigned; I did the right thing, and I have never regretted it. My call to Labour MPs who are mulling over this decision is: do what your gut is telling you to do. Follow your conscience, and do the right thing. This investigation will provide the answers that we all want. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I too support the new clauses, and I concur with a lot of what has already been said about the reasons for supporting them. I will make a couple of wider points on the merits of specialist rape courts and courts for sexual offences. There is nothing wrong with the legal system in this country when it comes to the fundamental principles of trying these crimes—that someone is innocent until proven guilty, that they have a right to be heard in court, and that evidence must be tested rigorously, as is the right of a defendant in any case. The issue is how that is applied in the way our courts operate in respect of a set of crimes that are extremely sensitive because of the impact on the complainant—the victim—who is almost always a live witness. It is trying to deal with the operation of the court that is at issue here.
I seek clarity on whether the new clause would apply to all judges or just to those in the criminal courts. In the family court the idea is to bring in expertise around the sort of issues that she talks about from agencies—such as the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, and even social services—in which there are lots of trained people, but that system does not always ensure that the judge is best placed to make a good decision, as we have seen in evidence. Will the hon. Lady clarify that point?
I realise that the hon. Member is struggling to read his own handwriting, but does he have anything at all to say about the Prime Minister’s conduct in appointing Peter Mandelson?
I have a suggestion for this disagreement that is going on in the House: why do we not refer it to the Privileges Committee?
The Chancellor said, “National security always comes first”, but she delayed the helicopter contract for our industrial base and we know that she is blocking the defence investment plan. Labour’s former Defence Secretary and secretary general of NATO, Lord Robertson, said, “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.” He is right, so why is the Chancellor failing to grip the benefits bill and invest in our defence?
Whereas the Conservatives froze fuel duty for 14 years, Labour is planning to increase it by 5p, costing families £150 a year and hauliers £2,000. When the Chancellor was asked to reverse her hike, she said she was “loath to spend Government money” to do so. There is no such thing as Government money; there is only taxpayers’ money. Rather than increase taxes again, will she actually help households and businesses facing higher prices and scrap this fuel hike?
Let me begin by welcoming the Minister back to his place—we missed him last night, and it is good to see him back in the Chamber. Throughout our many debates, we have broadly agreed on the policy intent behind most of the Bill, but as I have said time and again, agreement on the principles of a Bill is not the same as offering the Minister unqualified support for every measure in it, particularly the power contained in clause 40, the power of mandation—or the reserve power, as the Chief Secretary calls it—which enables Ministers to instruct pension funds where to invest. When the Bill was first introduced, that mandation power was truly breathtaking in its scope. It was extraordinary—an unconstrained power that would have allowed the Secretary of State access to 100% of at least £400 billion-worth of auto-enrolment default pension funds. It would have allowed Ministers to direct their investment in whatever way they saw fit. What happened the moment that became clear to people? Members sitting opposite and, indeed, behind me—not least those in Reform UK—were already queuing up with pet projects and struggling sectors. They thought that savers’ money should be used for net zero schemes, steel and renationalising water. They were not proposing those measures on the grounds of the return on investment for savers, and the income that they would generate for people’s later life; that much is obvious. But we said no—no to politicians having that power, no to Ministers directing pension savings into their pet projects, and no to overriding the interests of savers in favour of politicians desperate for access to capital. I was clear from the outset that the power was dangerous and had no place in the Bill. After sustained pressure from the industry, from the other place and from this side of the House, the Government have, very slowly, been forced to row back. They have rowed back from a power grab that threatened trust in auto-enrolment pensions and risked damaging savers’ retirement incomes. Let us be clear about what those concessions amount to. First, on allocation limits, the original Bill contained no cap whatsoever on how much of a saver’s pension could be mandated into specified assets. Now, after pressure, the Government have imposed hard limits. No more than 10% of a default fund may be directed into qualifying assets, and no more than 5% may be directed specifically into UK assets. That is a major retreat from the original proposal. Secondly, on sunset and single-use restrictions, the Government have brought forward the expiry date of the reserve power to 2032, if unused. They will repeal the whole regime by 2035 unless it is renewed by fresh primary legislation, and have limited the core mandation power so that it can be exercised only once—another retreat. Thirdly, the scope has been narrowed. Mandation can now apply only to the main default auto-enrolment fund, not the entire pension scheme or every pot—again, another retreat. Today we have had further concessions. The Government now accept that before this power can be exercised, regulators must conduct an independent assessment of whether a genuine collective action problem exists—whereby no one wants to be the first mover—and whether that problem is inhibiting investment in private markets. We have been consistent in our view that mandation is not the right solution, but we accept that requiring independent assessment before the power can be exercised is a safeguard against ministerial overreach, and I appreciate the Pensions Minister’s assurances from the Dispatch Box on the weight of evidence required. The Government have also accepted that the reserve power cannot be used before 2028—again, another retreat. The Government have further strengthened the savers’ interest test following yesterday’s amendment. Schemes will no longer have to prove that compliance would likely cause “material financial detriment”. Instead, they need only demonstrate that compliance is likely not to be in the best interests of members, thereby aligning the test with trustees’ existing fiduciary duties. That matters, because fiduciary duty is sacrosanct and must be protected. Nothing is more important in a modern pension system than the duty to act solely in the best interests of savers. That duty is the foundation on which trust in our pension system rests. This amendment means that in a conflict between mandation and fiduciary duty, fiduciary duty wins—again, another important retreat. Finally, the Government have agreed to remove discrimination between investment vehicles by clarifying that both direct and indirect holdings in the relevant asset classes count towards compliance—the final retreat. Every one of those changes tells the same story: the Government introduced a power that was too broad, too vague and too dangerous. Step by step, and under pressure, they have been forced to narrow it, constrain it and hedge it with safeguards. Why? Because the original power was indefensible, and because the Government knew that the concerns were real. The work that we have done has obliterated the Government’s original proposal. As it stands now, the mandation power looks nothing like how it was first imagined. What began as a sweeping ministerial power grab has been stripped back, pared down and boxed in on all sides. Only now, after our intervention, has it become at least palatable. It is a vestige of its former overmighty self—a shrivelled husk. Let me be clear: we do not believe that the Government should direct private capital, or that Ministers should interfere in investment decisions that are properly left to trustees and markets. Here we have Labour doing what it always does: thinking that the Government are the answer, with the state going where it has no place to go. When the Conservatives return to government, we will remove mandation from the statute book entirely, because at the heart of this policy lies a dangerous assumption that Ministers in Whitehall know better than trustees, fund managers and markets on how to invest the public’s pension savings. I have yet to meet anyone who wants a politician managing their pension, and pensions belong to the people who earn them, not Government Ministers. It is as simple as that.
Is the hon. Member therefore suggesting that the previous ambassador was not capable?
The hon. Member mentioned the Guardian story on 16 April. The Prime Minister found out about this on 14 April, so the earliest opportunity would have been 15 April at Prime Minister’s questions, would it not?
Having listened to this debate, I fear that the Labour Back Benchers who do not support the motion are being too pessimistic. They see a referral to the Privileges Committee as a threat or something to fear, which is the wrong approach. A referral to the Privileges Committee should be seen by Labour MPs as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to prove, as he says he believes, that he has done nothing wrong and has not misled the House; and an opportunity for the Government, who have summoned all their Back Benchers here today, demanding and expecting that they will give the Prime Minister their confidence, to show that the loyalty the Prime Minister expects of them is justified. Labour Back Benchers should be in no doubt that, as we have heard multiple times today, the manner in which this vote is being managed by the Labour Whips is not usual for a privilege motion. In whipping them to vote to save him from appearing before the Privileges Committee, and from having to explain himself, the Prime Minister is once again not following normal process. We have heard many speeches from Opposition Members about the allegations, our belief that the Prime Minister has misled the House, and our belief that normal due process has not been followed, although the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that it has. Labour Members must not forget that at the heart of this saga is the catastrophic lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister in hiring the twice-fired known friend of a convicted paedophile, who, as the Prime Minister knew, retained, even after the annexation of Crimea, an exec role at Sistema, a company with Russian defence interests. That is the level of judgment and the calibre of decision making that the Prime Minister has been trying to justify, and that is what has led to the claim that he has been misleading the House, which we are discussing today. The decision that Labour MPs face today is whether to support the Prime Minister’s version of events. We have seen too many times throughout this saga that it has been the Prime Minister’s version of events versus that of others. By asserting that he has not misled the House, the Prime Minister is effectively saying that Sir Olly Robbins and Sir Philip Barton have misled the Foreign Affairs Committee. Is that really what Labour MPs are comfortable supporting? Sir Olly Robbins said that No. 10 put pressure on the Foreign Office to expedite Mandelson’s vetting, and the Prime Minister insists that this did not happen. Sir Philip Barton said today at the Foreign Affairs Committee that the usual process for appointing an ambassador would be vetting first and then the announcement, not the announcement and then the vetting, as happened in the case of Mandelson’s appointment.
That is a very welcome intervention. My recollection, and that of most Opposition Members, is that the Prime Minister said there was no pressure whatsoever. That is not what was said at the Foreign Affairs Committee. Both those things cannot be right. Are Labour MPs saying that the Prime Minister is right, or are they saying that Sir Olly Robbins misled the Foreign Affairs Committee? Both those things cannot be right. They need to choose who they agree with and which of those is correct. They cannot both be correct.
Genius! My hon. Friend is full of great ideas. That is the calibre that we expect of him. On misleading the House, the Prime Minister said that no one in No. 10 was aware that there had been any concerns about Mandelson’s vetting before the revelation was made a few weeks ago, despite it being reported in The Independent in September last year. On that very point, I submitted a named day question to the Cabinet Office last week, which was due to be answered yesterday. It simply asked whether The Independent is one of the newspapers to which the current or any previous director of communications, press secretary or anyone else at No. 10 has a subscription. The named day deadline has passed; the answer has not been received. That was a simple question. Why has it not been answered? It would be very easy to find the answer. Maybe no one at No. 10 had a subscription to The Independent, but if they did, it would be difficult to hold the line that no one at No. 10 had any indication until just a few weeks ago that there had been any issues with Mandelson’s vetting. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister would like to intervene now and shed light on either the delay or the answer to that question, I will happily take the intervention.
That says all we need to know. I hope that Labour Back Benchers and, indeed, Ministers see today as the opportunity it is for the Prime Minister. By voting for the motion, they will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to present his case to the Privileges Committee, an opportunity to prove his side of the story and an opportunity—if, as he said, he did not mislead the House—to be exonerated on that claim. I leave MPs with this final thought. If, as he claims, the Prime Minister has done nothing wrong, why has he whipped the entire Labour party, some of them back from across the country—some of whom we have not seen for weeks in this place—to vote to prevent him from having to give evidence to the Privileges Committee?
My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. In Buckinghamshire, the Lib Dem-led fire authority has consulted on removing a third of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire engines and closing two fire stations in my constituency, Stokenchurch and Great Missenden. At a time when risk is increasing and we are seeing more fires, not least from battery storage, now is not the time to reduce frontline firefighting capability.
In Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, there was a consultation. The public overwhelmingly said no to cuts that that fire authority was pushing, and firefighters very clearly said, “No, this is crazy. Don’t do it.” How can the Government ensure that fire authorities, which are making local decisions, reflect the important views not just of the public, but of firefighters themselves?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on securing the debate and on the thoughtful way in which he presented his opening remarks, highlighting the need for a national strategy to prevent accidents, not least through the lens of the horrific tragedies that he outlined in the royal town. I am always pleased to see the Minister in her place, but this debate was tabled to discuss a national accident prevention strategy, which would need to extend well beyond the Minister’s portfolio and the Department for Transport. Roads and other transport methods represent only a portion of the challenges raised in the debate. For a Government whose principal ideology appears to be predicated on a misguided notion of due process, it seems that there has been an accident in today’s assignment. The issue at hand requires a Minister whose responsibility it is to think about the broader impact and prevention of accidents, which I would argue is someone in the Cabinet Office or the Department for Work and Pensions, which holds significant responsibility in this area as the sponsoring Department for the Health and Safety Executive. I say none of that as a criticism of the Minister, for whom I have a high regard and respect; I do say it as a criticism of the Government, because I cannot understand why they have chosen to field the Department for Transport in this debate rather than a Department that cuts across the whole of Government. This is an incredibly important issue. There is a risk of accident from the moment we wake up in the morning, when we travel to work or enjoy a leisure activity, and when we go about our daily business. Risk is in our journeys, and in every product we use and place we visit. The Government have a regulatory responsibility to mitigate those risks as much as possible—to prevent avoidable accidents, save lives and shield the taxpayer in the process. A national accident prevention strategy should be about creating not a burden or over-regulation, but the safety and confidence that people and businesses can live, operate and thrive in an environment with lower risk. The cost of accidents to the NHS is estimated at around £6 billion a year. It is suggested by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that accidents are the leading cause of death in the under-40s. We have a duty to do what we can to get to grips with the significant causes of accidents, especially as they change with new developments in our way of life. It is interesting to dive into the figures about prevalent accidents over time. Transport-related accidents are horrific, and of course the Government should want to do more to reduce those further, but they have already fallen by 17% over the past two decades. The number of falls, however, many of which will affect our elderly constituents, is up considerably by 90%, making up 46% of all accidents. I am interested to know how the Minister plans to address some of the major emerging causes of accidents, particularly by working across different Departments. RoSPA’s November 2024 report makes several recommendations, but the clear theme is the need for a more holistic, joined-up approach to accident prevention. The Health and Safety Executive does a robust job of upholding safety standards in the workplace, but there is a need to ensure that the safety standard is consistent at work, at home and in the public realm. Future-proofing our safety standards will also play a key role in mitigating risk for the long term. I would like to hear from the Minister what considerations the Government have made to accommodate the growing use of artificial intelligence and robotics in industry and business, both to mitigate accident risk and to utilise new technologies to reduce risks elsewhere. We have seen in our newspapers this week an example that is relevant to the Minister’s Department: a self-driving car drove straight through the police cordon around a crime scene in London. That emerging technology is clearly not foolproof, and has shown on the streets of our capital city this week that it is potentially dangerous, so how will the Government rise to the regulatory challenge? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield eloquently set out, this is a broad topic. It is clear from delving into the issue of accidents that the Government must take it seriously. Given that real strain and cost are being placed on our NHS and public services, and that some truly horrible accidents are happening around us each and every day, I would like to hear that the Government are taking this issue seriously and that work is being done across Government and not just within the Department for Transport. When it comes to delivering a broader accident prevention strategy, I hope that they will not take a narrow approach, but will listen to the recommendations of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and take the cross-departmental approach that is clearly necessary.
Integrated industrial clusters such as Saltend in my constituency provide fundamental chemicals and other inputs into defence and wider industries right across the country. Yet higher energy costs and global events mean that they are under unprecedented pressure. Will the Minister look at establishing an industrial support fund, so that rather than having an ad hoc approach, such as that seen when supporting Grangemouth, we have something strategic to ensure that we do not lose the industrial base upon which so much of this country depends?
I think my right hon. Friend is being a little too harsh on the limited number of Labour MPs present. The entire reputation of the Prime Minister of this country—the leader of their party—is on the line, and they are not turning out for him, because they know that he is now a laughing stock. Having called round their MPs, the Government found that they had to impose a three-line Whip to get them to spare the Prime Minister’s blushes. Can my right hon. Friend be a little bit kinder to Labour Members, especially the brave ones who are prepared to come to the Chamber and defend the indefensible?
The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech. He says that all allegations should be investigated properly. With the greatest respect to him, the Foreign Affairs Committee is not looking into whether the Prime Minister misled the House, and neither are the police. There is no process to do that, other than the one that Mr Speaker has allowed to be brought to the House today, which is to refer this matter—whether the Prime Minister has misled this House—to the Privileges Committee to determine. If the hon. Gentleman is to be consistent, he should agree with that and vote for it today.
What does the hon. Gentleman say to his colleagues, the hon. Members for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)? They do not see this as some politically motivated thing. This is a serious issue. It is a House issue. He has already said that he regrets that the vote is whipped. Surely he needs to see beyond whatever the Whips have told him.
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous with his time, but we have not really heard the case yet. Labour colleagues will be in a similar position to the hon. Gentleman. They know the Prime Minister—they have known him for years—and will be sure of his integrity or otherwise. Why does he think that a three-line Whip should be imposed on Labour Members? Even the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who spoke for the Prime Minister’s cause, could see that that was not a good idea, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to see it. As a good lawyer, maybe he will be able to share that argument with the House.
On the allegation that the Prime Minister may have misled this House, he has told the House that all due process was followed. We were told by Morgan McSweeney this morning that the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was made in a meeting for which there are absolutely no records and notes, despite extensive searches. At the beginning of this process, the Government failed on due process, yet the Prime Minister has repeatedly told us that due process was followed. That alone would be cause to allow the Privileges Committee to investigate. Labour Members need to look deep into their consciences before they vote against the motion.
It is quite clear, from the advice given by Simon Case in November 2024, that that was the situation. We only found out that there was not the alternative process because the documents were forced into the open. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that Chris Wormald’s letter, which suggested that everything had been done properly, contradicts the direct advice given by the then Cabinet Secretary that the vetting should be done first? It is not compatible; it is illogical. Surely, the hon. Gentleman, who is giving the least embarrassing speech on behalf of the Government so far—congratulations to him on that—can see that?
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. As many colleagues on the Opposition Benches have said, it brings a sense of déjà vu. I have a rather horrible chill up my spine when I remember being on the Government Benches and being pushed by the Whips to vote for certain things. As has already been said, we have a Prime Minister who promised to do things differently. He promised change, higher standards and transparency, and he is the ultimate arbiter and keeper of the ministerial code. Politics is often about a certain amount of deflection, but he seems to go beyond all precedent in not answering questions. He drives Mr Speaker up the wall—to the point that they have altercations in the Chamber. That is the backdrop. We have a Prime Minister who promised that he would be particularly transparent and bring forward a duty of candour law, but that was dropped. He promised higher standards, yet does not live up to it. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), who is the new trade envoy to the Republic of Korea, is in the Chamber, and it is fabulous to see that loyalty can be rewarded. I say to him, “Well done!” If Members back the Government, even when they should not, there can be a reward for them. But, as colleagues on this side of the Chamber have said, if Members do not vote with their conscience or do the right thing when their gut tells them to, they will regret it.
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. There is a particular change today, because we have a three-line Whip on a House matter. Members have spoken on behalf of the Government line. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who is in his place, said that he did not think the three-line Whip was a good idea, and others did not want to talk about it, but who was the three-line Whip for? Perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister can tell us. Labour Members have told us that they will always vote with their conscience and do the right thing, yet after the Whips had phoned round, it was decided that they must impose a three-line Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who has never been a Whip and does not have much fondness for them, has put the ghastly deed at their door. As a former Whip, I tend to think that it is more likely that the Whips did their job, giving a nuanced but properly informed answer. Then No. 10—sitting in the bunker, panicking, their only job to make sure that the Prime Minister is not replaced—said, “No, unless you can give us 100% support.” “There is no such thing as 100%,” the Chief Whip would reply. “No, no—then we insist that a three-line Whip is imposed.” And that happened.
The hon. Lady, who is a brilliant tennis player and a great partner, will forgive me if I give way to the hon. Member for Rugby, whom I referenced and should therefore allow to come in.