Topical Questions
T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Our economy needs access to oil. Last October, the Government announced that they were going to sanction Russian oil and jet fuel. Yesterday, they decided not to do so, on the same day that they banned new drilling in the North sea. Why do the Government support Putin’s Russian oil, but not our UK oil?
- Hansard source
Employment Rights Act 2025
Unemployment is rising, with youth unemployment now at 16%, and the jobs tax and the Employment Rights Act are destroying opportunities. Should Ministers not listen to the chief executive of M&S, who said that instead of “trying to run business,” the Government “should…understand business better”? Will they reduce the burden of regulation and tax, rather than continuing to increase it?
- Hansard source
Costs for Motorists
Not true!
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Given that no UK steel producers produce the specialist grades of steel used by precision engineers such as Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville, in my constituency, which supplies components for the aerospace and defence sectors, what is in this Bill for them? All they can see are incoming tariffs on the steel that they necessarily have to import because nobody makes it here.
- Hansard source
Industrial Strategy
The Government’s industrial strategy rightly states that improving skills in the construction sector is essential to keeping our country building. In fact, on page 44, there is a commitment to invest “£625 million to train…60,000 more skilled workers”. It has been one year since publication, so how many more skilled workers have entered the construction workforce as a result of that commitment?
- Hansard source
Industrial Strategy
I am grateful for the update on the Minister’s tiling skills, but I did not hear a number showing how he is making progress on the £625 million commitment. Perhaps he can write to me on how they are making progress. One of the existing schemes that supports training is the Construction Industry Training Board, but many industry leaders believe that it is no longer working or delivering. Construction firms are facing significant bills as a direct result of the levy, all while the CITB is reducing training provision. What is the Minister’s view of the CITB, and has he engaged with the construction industry to discuss it?
- Hansard source
Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate on domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system. Members in the Chamber will not be alone in having regularly encountered this issue in constituency casework. I expect all MPs across the House have constituents who are struggling with these issues, and perhaps even they are in their private lives. This subject demands seriousness, sensitivity and honesty from all of us. Behind every statistic in this debate are children living in fear, survivors trying to rebuild their lives and families navigating court processes at moments of enormous stress and vulnerability. For too many people, the family justice system is not an abstract institution; it is the place they have to go to where decisions are made that will shape their safety, their relationships with their children and often the trajectory of their lives for years to come. That is why getting the system right matters so much. As we have heard, domestic abuse is present in 73% of active family court proceedings and 87% of closed cases. One in five children in the UK experience some form of domestic abuse, and 78% of those children are directly harmed by the perpetrator. Those are sobering figures, and they remind us that domestic abuse is not something that exists separately from family justice proceedings. We also know that children are too often affected directly by failures of the system. According to Women’s Aid, over the last 30 years 67 child deaths have been linked to unsafe contact arrangements, with 19 having occurred since 2016. When we discuss safeguarding in family courts, we are discussing not peripheral procedural matters, but the core responsibility of the state to protect vulnerable people—women, children and also men. I want to acknowledge the work of survivors, campaigners and charities who have driven progress in this area through their extraordinary courage and persistence. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham for bringing representatives from Kaleidoscopic UK, who I understand are attending the debate. I would be grateful to catch up with them afterwards, if that is possible. Many other groups and individuals work in this area. For example, I recently worked with Paula and Tony Hudgell and their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), to secure the establishment of the child cruelty register, so that parents and other individuals who commit child cruelty offences are monitored and tracked in the same way that child sex offenders are. The Opposition also supported the Government’s measures to restrict the parental responsibility of serious child sex offenders. During the passage of that legislation, we successfully argued, alongside others, that the provisions should go further than was originally proposed. They would only have applied to parents who perpetrated offences against their own children, but with Members across the House, we persuaded the Government to change that to those who commit offences against all children. We agreed that, on balance, a threshold of “serious offences” was the suitable way to go, but that if that worked well and was effective, we should consider lowering that threshold. Why should anyone who commits any sort of offence against a child not automatically have to argue for their own parental responsibility? It is important to recognise the work that was undertaken by the previous Government, which others have mentioned. In particular, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognised as victims in their own right children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse. Dame Nicole Jabobs and others long advocated for those changes, and the Act made victims automatically eligible for special measures in court. Those changes and others reflect society’s growing understanding in recent decades of the importance of confronting and tackling domestic abuse and abuse of children. The previous Government also commissioned the harm panel review in 2020, which was an expert-led review into how family courts handle domestic abuse and serious offences. We launched a review into the presumption of parental contact, and we piloted the pathfinder model, now the child-focused model, to improve information sharing, increase judicial continuity and ensure that children’s voices are heard more effectively throughout proceedings. Alongside that, we invested £3.3 million in the mediation voucher scheme, helping thousands of families to resolve disputes outside the courtroom where it is appropriate and safe to do so. There is still room for mediation and other measures to reduce the burden on our courts and save them for the most complicated and difficult cases. Last year, the independent “Everyday Business” review painted a deeply worrying picture of how survivors often experience family court proceedings. Survivors described feeling that their abuse was minimised or treated as secondary to maintaining contact arrangements. Judges and magistrates identified serious pressures on them arising from limited court time, delays and lack of continuity. Only 21% of cases reportedly had judicial continuity—a striking figure that shows that even when cases as complex as these go through the court process, we cannot rely on a single judge seeing them through from start to finish. The report also highlighted siloed working between different parts of the system. In many cases, there are overlapping criminal and family proceedings, yet delays and backlogs can mean that family courts proceed before criminal matters are resolved. That can have a huge impact. If an individual subsequently receives a criminal conviction, that may well unpick and call into question the original rulings. These are not easy issues to solve. I recognise all of the work done and the arguments made by campaigners, but legislating in this area is incredibly challenging because the dynamics of families, particularly those experiencing breakdown, are very complex. There are also strongly held views in different organisations on, for example, the presumption of parental involvement and how family courts should approach contact arrangements. Many campaigners argue that abuse has historically been minimised in decision making. In too many cases that is true, but whatever view people take, there should be broad agreement on one central principle: safeguarding and child welfare must come first. That includes ensuring that professionals throughout the system are properly trained to understand the dynamics of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid has argued that we need not just legislative reform but a wider cultural shift across the family justice system. There is real substance to that argument, because even the best legislation will fall short if victims feel that they are not listened to, believed, or welcomed and facilitated to participate. I will be grateful if the Minister says more about how the Government intend to deliver cultural change in practice. I also want to talk about accountability. We have heard discussion of the Sara Sharif case. I have mentioned in the House before that I first encountered these issues as an MP through an amazing lady, a constituent of mine, who was fostering a young girl who had been removed from her family on a temporary basis. The wider family did not want that young girl to be given back contact with her immediate family, the foster carer did not think it was a good idea, and social services did not think it was a good idea—but the judge awarded custody back to her parents. That young girl is now in a wheelchair. She is highly dependent and severely disabled. The exceptional individual I mentioned went on to adopt her in those circumstances, which is one of the most noble things I have ever seen anybody do. She approached me because she was aware of all the mechanisms of accountability that everybody else in the system has to go through, particularly teachers and social services. She simply wanted to know what accountability was available for the judge. I wrote to the Lady Chief Justice and said, “Obviously, you can’t comment on this case, but what are the systems, for a case like this where things have gone badly wrong, for a judge to have to account for the decisions they have taken?” There are none, outside of complaints about extreme behaviour, which none of us would consider to really test the issues, or if the judge makes a legal error, for which the threshold is, again, really high. I think we have a lot to do. Certainly, in the Conservative party we are working on how we can introduce much more accountability in the judiciary—not to make them accountable to the Government, because the separation of the judiciary and the Government is very important. I draw on my experience as a doctor; we have done loads to improve the accountability of highly trained, highly specialist medical professionals who we would not want the state interfering with. It is simply about ensuring they are not a law unto themselves when it comes to making poor decisions. Previously, the test was pretty much whether a doctor had made a decision that any other doctor thought was reasonable. Now, the test is much more about whether that decision was objectively reasonable. I also want to touch on the pathfinder courts. As we have heard, 10 of 43 courts have now been implemented. I would like to understand the Government’s timetable for the very welcome decision to roll them out more widely. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), talked about the interdependencies around access to specialist services to make that a reality. I think requesting a timetable is not asking too much of the Minister. Those are important things that we are all in agreement on, but at the same time this Government are taking what I think are catastrophic decisions in relation to the justice system. The Government have legislated for perpetrators of domestic abuse as serious as rape, child abuse, stalking and harassment—very many offences—to get out of prison earlier. Right now, there are people in prison for the rape of their partner, or sexual offences against their own children, who will get out of prison earlier because of the steps that this Government have taken. I will continue to press that matter with them, whatever else they are doing that is positive. People go to the court system because they want justice, and seeing rapists being let out early is not justice. That is something the Government should continue to reflect on.
- Hansard source
Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding
It is all very well to send people on training. As a doctor, I have sat in on training sessions. People can be in a training seminar together, and some will pay attention and some will not. Some will take it seriously, and some will not. If there is not a system of accountability at the other end, training can become a tick-box exercise if we are not careful.
- Hansard source
Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding
I have asked the Minister about this before, and she did not answer. Maybe I will get an answer this time. One thing she might set those additional support services to do is let people know when perpetrators will get out of prison earlier because of the Government’s decisions. Can she at least commit to writing to victims to let them know in advance that their perpetrator is going to be let out of prison earlier?
- Hansard source
Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we are discussing health, I should declare that I am a former NHS doctor and my wife is an NHS doctor. I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for her detailed and highly researched speech, as well as all other Members who have spoken. This has been a most concerning debate in relation to the systemic impact of health promotion, and it has thrown up bigger, more fundamental challenges that we, as a society, must start to grapple with. I will come to that later in my remarks. My first job in the psychiatric training scheme—and my first consultant job—was on a women’s ward in south-east London. That was one of the most amazing jobs I have ever done: looking after very poorly women and doing my bit to deal with complex physical health issues and to promote women’s health. I totally appreciate and agree about the importance of reducing what is—let us face it—ridiculous stigma and social taboo around women’s health issues, but I come at this as a doctor, so I have a particular perspective. Equally, I am mindful that my perspective—how I look at society—has changed during my 44 years. If someone had asked the Ben of 20 years ago, “Do you think we live in a society that is equal for men and women?” he would have said, “Yes, of course we do.” In the past 15 years, I have come to know that that is completely wrong, things are nowhere near where they should be and we still have a huge amount of work to do. Sadly, what we have heard in this debate, and the list of de-promoted words that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central handed to me, are further evidence of the challenges that we must tackle. She is 100% right to raise this topic, among others, and to call out what has been happening. But—and there is a “but”—this issue is not simply about access to information. This is not just a question of whether the information should or should not be accessible—in my view, it absolutely should be—or of how to determine the threshold between adult content and factual material. The debate also relates to decisions made by private companies to impose limits on what they permit or promote on their sites. That is the nub of the issue: should companies be allowed to make those decisions, or should it be the role of Government to regulate those choices or actions? To be clear, I do not believe that this debate is about the scope of the Online Safety Act, which does not restrict companies in the publication of factual health information. At no point does that Act says that information on breasts, vaginas, fertility, menstruation or menopause, or on any other body part, condition or medical term, should be restricted or classified as adult material. The way that that information or imagery is presented may indeed come within the scope of the Act, but its existence does not. Inappropriate adult content should not be accessible to children—that is right—but factual and educational material should not meet that criterion. It is also worth bearing in mind that, in some ways, this is not a new issue. I am sure that, just as people looked at information in anatomy textbooks for educational purposes before the internet, plenty of people looked at it for other purposes—but, again, that is not a matter for Parliament or the Online Safety Act. Under our current legal framework, private companies have the right to choose what information they permit on their websites. That is a commercial decision, and if we are not happy with such a decision—my very strong view is that we should not support the restriction of information relating to women’s health—we should call them out and persuade them to change their position. Algorithmic transparency is important, but it is also critical, given the evidence that we have heard in this debate, that companies are not able to hide behind the Online Safety Act. A bigger problem that we will have to tackle or process at some point is the status of social media in our society. Is it private or is it something bigger? Should it be regulated, like news outlets? That would be a huge change in our position, creating such regulatory burdens as to make the UK wholly uncompetitive in the market and having an extreme impact on people’s access to information. It would also be counterproductive, because it is nigh-on impossible to do. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom I welcome to his place. This is the first time I have had the pleasure of being opposite him at the Dispatch Box. I reiterate the Opposition’s strong support for what Members from both sides of the House have said about the importance of destigmatising these matters. I hate even using the word “destigmatise” because I worry that that is stigmatising in itself—it is ridiculous, in some ways, that we have to have this debate in the modern age, but we are where we are. We must ensure that everyone has access to sensible and appropriate information, without the biases that have been mentioned in the debate. Finally, as a former NHS mental health doctor, I point out that social media is not the only online source of health information. I signpost people who have questions to the NHS website, where there is plenty of stuff on all health areas—I looked it up on my phone during the debate. We do not have to rely on big-tech social media; we have plenty of services in which other information is available.
- Hansard source
Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship
I appreciate where the hon. Lady is coming from, but unless I am wrong, those examples are all within the auspices of the OSA.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
In his business statement, the Leader of the House rightly referred to fly-tipping waste criminals. Will he allow for a debate in Government time to consider a different sort of waste perpetrated on our constituents, which is that arising from so-called energy-from-waste plants, otherwise known waste incinerators, which are more polluting than burning coal and for which the UK is already overprovisioned. We have too many of these things, they are not wanted and it is time for a moratorium. Can we have a debate on that?
- Hansard source
Middle East: Economic Response
The announcement on red diesel will be welcomed by my farming constituents, who will await the details on the tariffs the Chancellor has cited with a great deal of interest and a certain amount of trepidation. Does she acknowledge that a third of the world’s fertilisers pass through the strait of Hormuz, and that the increase in the price of fertiliser is bound to have an impact on British agriculture and therefore on prices in the shops? What will she do to relieve some of that—in some cases existential—pressure on farms in the United Kingdom?
- Hansard source
Middle East
The behaviour of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir brings shame on all of us who consider ourselves to be friends of Israel. Given that the joint comprehensive plan of action was not working and Iran continued to advance its plans for a nuclear weapon, how would the Minister have de-fanged the regime? While he is right to claim some credit for the FTA with the gulf states, will he give credit, too, to his predecessors, who did a lot of the heavy lifting, and will he at least concede that the whole thing would not have been possible if we were still in the European Union?
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
In keeping open the options that the Secretary of State hints at, has he had any discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence? At least for the foreseeable future, there will always be a need for virgin steel for certain defence applications.
- Hansard source
Costs for Motorists
Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reassure me that the Treasury really understands that in rural areas the cost of fuel not only relates to what motorists pay for driving but affects everything—all the goods and services provided—on sale in the shops? Therefore, rather than trying to put caps on the things that are on sale in shops, the best way to help keep costs down in rural areas is to keep fuel costs down.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
May I begin by sending my commiserations to the family and friends of Scottish rugby legend Scott Hastings, who died recently aged only 61? Scott was an inspirational figure, both on and off the pitch. I am sure the Leader of the House shares my concern about the outbreak of Ebola that is affecting both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. Hundreds of people have already died. Can we have an oral statement when the House returns to hear what the UK is doing to prevent the spread of the outbreak? The UK played a pivotal role in stopping the previous serious outbreak, in Sierra Leone, and must have much to offer by way of expertise in relation to this one.
- Hansard source
Middle East: Economic Response
Will the Chancellor expand on her discussions with the supermarkets and their role in keeping prices down? When the supermarkets make special offers or reduce prices, there is always a concern that rather than absorbing the costs themselves, they pass them on directly to farmers and their suppliers, who are not in a position to absorb them because of their fixed production costs.
- Hansard source
Middle East
While the trade agreement with the GCC is obviously welcome, why does the Minister think it is possible to reach a trade agreement with the GCC but not to influence its members to play a more positive role in resolving the issues in Yemen, Sudan and elsewhere? They have a key role to play in these disputes. I know that he takes a very specific issue on Yemen. What more can he do to make the United Arab Emirates, for example, play a more positive role there and elsewhere?
- Hansard source
Employment Rights Act 2025
The Employment Rights Act is one of the reasons given by one in eight business leaders for considering leaving Britain. Indeed, 30% of the Sunday Times rich list have already fled this high-tax socialist Government. The family business tax is another. Will the Minister please lobby the Chancellor for another U-turn, this time to adopt our policy of scrapping the family business tax?
- Hansard source
Steel Strategy
I will carry on with the same theme, because it is clear from all sides that there are real issues with the element of the steel strategy that imposes a 50% tariff on 1 July. It is affecting manufacturing businesses up and down this country, and it is being done in a way that not only threatens manufacturing jobs, but increases inflationary pressures. Can the Minister tell the House what impact assessment he has done on the effect of these measures on inflation and on jobs?
- Hansard source
Costs for Motorists
Rural drivers in West Worcestershire will be delighted that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has seen the political reality that it would have been mad to put another 5p on petrol on 1 September, but can she explain to my constituents why we are not allowing oil and gas extraction from our own basin yet we are allowing an increase in Putin-produced oil and gas?
- Hansard source
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
I thank the Minister for advance sight of both the long and short versions of his statement. We support the Humble Address and continue to support full transparency in this matter. I have just a few questions. I think the Minister said that this is just the start of a full disclosure. Will he share with the House whether there will be further disclosure, or is this the final amount? If there are to be further tranches, will he give the House a clear and final timetable for when the process will be complete? Is the absence of a formal record of due diligence or any vetting process evidence that the Government raised no questions at the time about the appointment? Where, if anywhere, are the documented concerns or challenge from officials or Ministers at the time? When will the full set of files that this House requested relating to Lord Mandelson’s role, and particularly any advice, correspondence or due diligence connected to his appointment, be released to the House? Finally, the Minister has a large trade envoy programme under his responsibility. What due diligence are the Government doing on appointees to that trade envoy programme, and do those appointees follow a code of conduct that governs their behaviour?
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
This has been an interesting debate, because it has brought out the strategic love of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation among Government Members. With our reasoned amendment we have tried to put out a different approach. We also heard clearly from Reform that it is in favour of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. This Bill will satisfy neither our camp nor their camp. With this Bill, we have a chaotic, unplanned, non-strategic journey that will end up burning through taxpayers’ money at every stage. We can see that the decisions that the Government have taken since they came to power have delivered the worst of all possible worlds for this crucial industry.
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that, in the interests of time, I would not take any interventions. This Bill is an emergency intervention with mounting public costs that have no clear limits for the taxpayer. This legislation will certainly not put things on a secure footing. We were told this time last year, when we were brought in on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, that nationalisation was not the plan. The Prime Minister went to China with the Secretary of State and failed to secure a deal for British Steel, so we have this Bill. It does not resolve any underlying issues. Instead, it just opens the door to an indefinite and infinite bill for the taxpayer, and that is not all. It has a sunset clause that, would the House believe it, can be extended indefinitely. There are far too many unchecked powers in this Bill. It does not address, as the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned, that Britain has the highest energy prices in the developed world. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel unless there is an energy policy for industry. In addition to the Chair of the Select Committee, we had an interesting speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). She spoke about how we could turn this Bill into temporary, emergency legislation and about the path to returning British Steel to the private sector. We also had powerful interventions from Opposition Members, including from my hon. Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). They spoke up for the businesses in their constituencies that will be so badly affected by the inflationary 50% tariff on imported steel as of 1 June. This afternoon is a chance for the Minister to answer some questions. Why were the Government unable to strike a deal with the Chinese owners? When exactly did the Government decide that nationalisation was the right path? Did they decide that before the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 was introduced? If so, why was the House not told that at the time? Why should the taxpayer be the one who foots this bill? How is this value for money for the taxpayer? Do we even know what the total cost to the taxpayer will be from these ongoing losses, the capital investment and the enormous liabilities? This Bill commits the taxpayer to ownership of an asset that loses hundreds of millions of pounds each year. What assessment has the Minister made of the chilling impact that the measures in this Bill will have on other inward investors into the United Kingdom, and what is his exit strategy, if he has one? If the Government propose to nationalise a steel company on the basis that it meets the public interest test, can the Minister explain how the same asset could ever be returned to private ownership without contradicting their own public interest assessment that it is in the national interest? Or is the reality that once the threshold is crossed, the British taxpayer is locked into permanently underwriting a loss-making asset, with no timetable for it to return? Why is there no requirement in this Bill for a proper impact or value-for-money assessment before the Secretary of State exercises the powers? Why have the Government not taken us up on our cheap power plan, which addresses one of the root causes of this sector’s difficulties? Can the Minister—I think I heard him say it from a sedentary position, but I would like to hear him say it again—urgently commit to look at the impact of the 50% steel tariffs on our steel manufacturing sector? This House should not be required to sign a blank cheque. We cannot and will not support legislation that appears to be nationalisation in search of a rationale. I urge all colleagues to support our reasoned amendment.
- Hansard source
Middle East: Economic Response
Order. I will try to get all Members in, but I encourage them to ask very short questions. There are two more statements and the main business to come this afternoon, and we are getting a little tight on time.
- Hansard source
Middle East: Economic Response
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, but I am obliged to point out that, in fact, Peppa Pig World, on the edge of my constituency, is the finest attraction in the country.
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
With a five-minute time limit, I call Jessica Morden.
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
I am setting a three-minute time limit, which will allow most Members to get in, but not all.
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Order. I call Melanie Onn.
- Hansard source
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Pubs: Bromsgrove
11. What steps he is taking to support pubs in Bromsgrove constituency.
- Hansard source
Pubs: Bromsgrove
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that the picture she paints is not one that pubs across my constituency will recognise. A typical pub in my constituency is paying around £2,500 in additional costs a month compared with two years ago, because of a rise in energy costs, employment costs and business rates. If the Minister is serious about supporting the hospitality sector, will the Government look at a permanent cut to business rates for pubs and exempt pubs with accommodation from the overnight levy?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T8. The Government’s new steel tariff and quota regime, due to come in in a few weeks, means that many businesses face a cliff edge. One in my constituency recently got in touch to tell me that it faces either a slow death or a swift death, and that it faces calling in the administrators before Christmas. Will the Minister keep an open mind about extending the transitional period, and will he agree to meet me and a very small number of my constituents who will be affected?
- Hansard source
Costs for Motorists
Having worked in the oil industry, I understand the flow of oil products around the world quite well, and it is unquestionable that the Government have eased the prospect of Putin’s oil flowing into the UK’s oil market—that is beyond doubt. I have three questions for the Chief Secretary. Can she explain the Treasury’s calculation of the extent to which this move may benefit UK motorists? Can she explain why the Government have decided to do this, and can she tell us what she thinks the cost will be to the Government’s integrity and whether it is worth it?
- Hansard source
Costs for Motorists
Obviously, the Minister is not aware that the previous Conservative Government froze fuel duty for 14 years. Some of us lobbied for the Government of the day to abolish the escalator, but we did not do it. However, may I ask her one key question? How much extra money has the Treasury obtained as a result of the rise in the wholesale price of fuel at the pumps?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
As we approach the end of the domestic football season, it is only right that we congratulate Aston Villa on winning the Europa league last night. Indeed, it was only a year ago that I was celebrating Tottenham winning the Europa league. If I may say so, however, the most vital game on Sunday is Tottenham versus Everton. I thank the House for re-electing me as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I am glad that there will be a motion on the Order Paper to reappoint five Members to the Committee. On that basis, we will try to meet on Tuesday 2 June to consider applications. I understand that there are 11 new applications already, adding to the 42 we had left when Prorogation took place. I note that the Chairman of Ways and Means has granted two of those debates in Westminster Hall to reduce our burden. Will the Leader of the House grant time in the Chamber as soon as possible for the Backbench Business Committee? For those colleagues who are on the existing waiting list, the Committee will decide whether we continue with it or clean it out. I ask colleagues not to reapply until the Committee has made that decision. Mr Speaker, you will know that I have been a champion of homeless people throughout my parliamentary career, and I was delighted that the Government eventually got through the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the last Session. However, a statutory instrument is required to abolish the Vagrancy Act for good. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for the relevant Minister to make sure that the statutory instrument is brought forward forthwith, so we can get away from a position where people who are homeless can be prosecuted for being homeless? That is unacceptable and needs to be consigned to the history books.