Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Given that national debt is around 95% of GDP and debt interest costs are nearly 4% of GDP, does the Chancellor agree that it would be irresponsible to fund any cost of living support by increasing borrowing? That would further drive up borrowing costs, choke off growth and saddle future generations with totally unfair debt.
Does the Chancellor agree that, post Brexit, Government Departments have much more freedom to buy British? Under the Procurement Act 2023, they can ignore EU directives. Will the Chancellor walk with us into the broad, sunlit uplands of post-Brexit Britain and use the freedoms that we obtained for this country?
I want to speak only briefly. I am not particularly party political. I do not like making personal attacks and I am not calling for the Prime Minister to resign. I am not questioning the appointment of Peter Mandelson—this debate is not about whether that was a good decision. I am sure that at the time there was some logic in appointing him. Obviously, the incoming President was a very political, difficult character, and it was felt that Mandelson had the political skills to deal with him. I understand all that, so I am not making a big issue about whether or not it was right to appoint him. I was not going to speak in the debate until I heard the very powerful speech made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell). It came from somebody who is obviously a loyal member of the Labour party, as is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who has just spoken. They were not trying to damage their own Government; all they were trying to say, I think, was that when there is an issue such as this, when all sorts of allegations are being thrown across the Floor of the House about whether people lied or not, a Privileges Committee process is one of catharsis. We saw that with Boris Johnson. There was deep upset in the country. Whether that was fair or not, and whether Mr Johnson acted wrongly or not, we know that there was deep upset about partygate. But it was right for the House to decide to have the Privileges Committee inquiry. We knew that, in a way, that drew a line under the whole thing. I believe the Prime Minister. I am sure that he is an honourable person. It is not for me to say that he deliberately misled the House. But there are many questions that quite reasonable people are asking. One of the most reasonable questions was put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition: if due process was followed, why was a dedicated civil servant, Sir Olly Robbins, sacked for apparently not following due process? I think many reasonable people feel that what is really monstrously unfair about this matter is that dedicated civil servants were simply trying to carry out the wishes of their political masters and that Sir Olly Robbins has paid a very great price. Our civil service is incredibly loyal to Ministers. They work loyally for Ministers and they try to carry out their wishes. I think many reasonable people feel that the treatment of Sir Olly Robbins has been quite wrong and that he should be reinstated. But that, in a way, is for another day. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) put it so well: if there is nothing to hide, why worry? These scandals are such a war of words that we almost lose track of what was originally true. It is not the original scandal—if there is indeed a scandal—that is at fault; it is the cover-up or the perceived cover-up. What is the best way to restore public trust in Parliament, in the system and in what the Prime Minister said or did not say? The public are not that interested in all the details. They are probably, like me, quite confused about whether the process was followed, who said what, whether the chief of staff bullied the head of the Foreign Office and so on. Those are all just party political words and the Westminster bubble. What is important is the reputation of this place. The most important thing in this place—we may say wrong things, we may say silly things, we may be party political—is that we must tell the truth. That is all that matters. Nothing else matters in this Parliament. I am prepared to accept that the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, made this appointment. I am prepared to accept that in his heart of hearts, when he has been standing at that Dispatch Box, he has been telling the truth. Why can we not just have the Privileges Committee—not the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is deciding great issues of foreign affairs—look at that narrow issue? Why can we not just not have a vote at all, as we did on the previous occasion with Boris Johnson? Just do not have a vote, let us all express our point of view and let it go through. Let us have an impartial Committee, let us listen to the testimony, and let the Committee and the House of Commons make up their own mind on the truth.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I have been involved with the park homes issue for the best part of 30 years; I have 2,000 people in my constituency living in park homes, and I am much concerned by the abuses so many of them have suffered—not just in my constituency, but across the country. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who referred to my private Member’s Bill, the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023, which changed the pitch fee maximum from RPI to CPI. I was privileged to be able to take that Bill through all its stages in one day; it is an example of how private Member’s Bills can be used to help park home residents. My former colleague Peter Aldous did exactly the same thing, introducing the fit and proper person legislation through the Mobile Homes Act 2013. That Bill was effectively drafted in what is now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and was given priority by the then Minister, Grant Shapps, who said, “I can’t get parliamentary time from the Government, but I’m going to promote this among Back Benchers.” I ask the Minister here today to do something similar regarding the lack of action on complex ownership. That issue was raised in 2017 and the Government promised to take action on it, but nothing has happened. The Minister kindly came along and addressed the all-party parliamentary group on park homes in February last year. Since then, he has honoured his commitment to do something about the 10% commission issue. However, at the moment there is complete radio silence on dealing with the abuses that exist, some of which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and others. Action must be taken to protect park home owners from rogue operators, of whom there are far too many.
When the Minister kindly came to the APPG on park homes, he heard from Nat Slade, the environmental health officer for Arun district council, about the issues he faces and the need for urgent action on complex ownership structures, which was first promised in 2017. Where is that on the Minister’s agenda?
It is a pleasure to participate in this very important debate. I am going to add a perspective from someone who has never been in the Whips Office, but who has witnessed the dark arts of the Whips during his time in this place. I can see that what is happening today is that the Prime Minister has been persuaded by his Whips to issue a demand that all his troops should support him in voting down this motion, the consequence of which is that he will be even more unpopular, the results for Labour in the local elections will be even worse, and as a result it will be easier for the Labour party and its Whips to scapegoat the Prime Minister for their failures. It will then be easier for them to change their leader, which is what a lot of them are yearning to be able to do. If the Prime Minister referred himself to the Privileges Committee or the motion were not being contested, the Prime Minister, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, would have the opportunity to go before the Committee and explain himself, and even if some of the allegations were proved to be true, in my view the penalty would not be that severe. I remember that, at the time of the 1997 general election, Margaret Thatcher came down to support me in Christchurch. On the same day, one of our colleagues, who was standing in another constituency, had been condemned by the then Standards Committee for having been in breach of the rules of the House, so the first question that the former Prime Minister had to contend with when she arrived in Christchurch was “What do you think of Neil Hamilton?” She had what I thought was the perfect answer. She said, “Nobody’s perfect.” Obviously, when someone has answered a question in that way it is very hard to put in any supplementaries, and despite their best efforts the press were not able to get any further, so they had to start talking about the prospects of the Conservatives winning back the Christchurch constituency in the election. I think that if this matter were referred to the Privileges Committee, ultimately the effect would be that someone would say, “Well, nobody’s perfect. They have a Prime Minister who uses words such as ‘whatsoever’ to exaggerate a situation.” When we look up “whatsoever” in a dictionary, we see that it is really intended to reinforce the strength of a proposition: “There was no pressure—whatsoever”.
No, I will not give way; I think we need to make progress. The effect of using the word “whatsoever”, I think, was that the Prime Minister probably inadvertently misled himself. I am being generous, but what I am really saying to Labour Members is: “Watch out. You are probably working very well together to bring down the downfall of this Prime Minister.” My constituents would be delighted if there was a general election and a chance to change the Government, but the last thing they want is to get rid of this Prime Minister and be faced with another Prime Minister from the Labour party who they think will be far worse, even though they might be more effective. That is my contribution to this evening’s debate. It is a small contribution, but I hope it may influence the way in which some Labour Members choose to vote.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a national accident prevention strategy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Today, I want to draw the House’s attention to what can only be described as a silent and spiralling crisis in our country: the devastating human cost of preventable accidents. This is not a new issue, but it is getting worse and, crucially, it is still not given the level of sustained national attention that its scale demands. Too often, people think of accidents as tragic misfortune, but they are often ordinary moments: a fall at home, a collision on the road, an accident at work, a lapse in safety in a familiar environment. Every Member here will recognise the pattern: we hear it in our advice surgeries, we receive the letters and we take the calls. We meet parents who have lost children, spouses who have lost partners and children who have lost a parent in circumstances that are sudden, awful and preventable. Towards the end of last year, following two road fatalities in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield in our community over the course of a week and the drowning of a teenager in Sutton park, I had the valuable experience of meeting a long-standing resident of Royal Sutton Coldfield, Becky Hickman, who is the chief executive officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and has championed accident prevention at the national level for over 20 years. Indeed, she is in the Public Gallery today. One of those horrific accidents took place on Friday 22 August last year, when, tragically, 21-year-old Natasha Thorp was struck by a car on Brassington Avenue in my constituency and died shortly afterwards. I have had the privilege of getting to know her family a little and of joining Natasha’s father and other members of her family at the recent installation of a memorial bench in Sutton Park overlooking Blackroot pool. It is hard to describe the life-changing trauma they have suffered, but they are not alone. RoSPA and I welcome the Department for Transport’s new road safety strategy, but it is a small part of a much bigger issue and strategy. Road traffic accidents are sadly not isolated events, and accidental deaths and injuries do not only happen on the roads. Tragedies can occur at home, at work and when out in open spaces.
As the hon. Member will see as I develop my speech, I very much agree with him. In Birmingham, we have the seventh highest number of accidental deaths in England. Each year, more than 550 families in our city lose a loved one due to a preventable accident. That is more than one death every day. Across the west midlands, more than 2,000 people annually die due to accidents, the equivalent of wiping out a small village year after year. Nationally, there has been an 8% rise in accidental death rates and a 3% increase in hospital admissions in just one year. Over the past decade, accidental death rates have risen by more than 40%. That is not a blip, a statistical anomaly or a short-term fluctuation; it is a serious problem that has been brushed under the carpet for too long. There is a wider national cost to this issue. Accidents place a significant and growing burden on the national health service. Every preventable injury that results in an emergency admission adds pressure to already stretched A&E departments, ambulance services and hospital wards. We are talking about millions of bed days every year linked to accident-related admissions. Accidents now are believed to cost us at least £6 billion annually in NHS medical care. The impact on NHS staff is also profound. Doctors, nurses, paramedics and support staff are dealing daily with injuries and emergencies that in many cases could have been prevented. That is not only a clinical challenge, but a human one, placing additional strain on a workforce who are already under great pressure. The burden extends across the economy. When people are injured, they are often unable to work—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Families lose income; employers lose skilled workers; productivity falls. The country loses millions of working days each year due to accident-related absence. The combined cost to UK business is now estimated at about £6 billion every year. Taken together, this represents a hidden but substantial cost to the country—to our health service, economy and public finances. The truth is that we can do better. Indeed, we have done better before. We know what works: safer homes, stronger product standards, effective public awareness campaigns, improved design of public spaces, better data collection, and co-ordinated action across Government and local agencies.
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and he adds that particular tragedy to the tragedies that I have already mentioned. Of course he is right that, with modern technology racing ahead in so many ways, our data should be better and more effective at informing the decisions that are made. He made that point with great eloquence. What is currently lacking is a clear, coherent and sustained national strategy to bring these efforts together. At present, responsibility for accident prevention is fragmented across multiple Departments: Health, Transport, Housing, Education and others. The result is a system in which responsibility is dispersed, co-ordination is inconsistent and prevention too often falls through institutional gaps. That is why I believe there is now a compelling case for a national accident prevention strategy. Such a strategy would have benefits across the whole of Government: safer roads for the Department for Transport, reduced pressure on the national health service for the Department of Health and Social Care, less spending on benefits for people unable to work because of accidents for the Department for Work and Pensions and higher productivity for the Treasury. A national accident prevention strategy must therefore be led by the Cabinet Office, which has the oversight necessary to set cross-Government priorities and to co-ordinate and align the activities of different Departments to achieve them. Becky Hickman and RoSPA should be asked to produce a report for the Government on what such a strategy might look like. It should, in my view, be based on a few clear principles: first, ministerial leadership at the centre of Government, ensuring accountability and direction; secondly, a clear focus on prevention, rather than simply reacting after harm has occurred—the very point that the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) was making just a moment ago.
I think I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, except that I would not wish to make an exceptional case for the countryside. This issue affects all part of our country. As he will know, the royal town of Sutton Coldfield is an ancient town and is therefore not part of the countryside as such, although within the royal town of Sutton Coldfield we have the biggest municipal park in Europe, so we at least doff our caps to the issue of rurality. I was listing the number of clear principles that I thought should inform a report of the type I have described. I had mentioned two; the third is indeed the better use of data, so that we understand where risks are emerging, where interventions are needed and whether policies are working. I suspect I will carry the two hon. Gentlemen who have intervened on me on that point: the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for West Dorset (Edward Morello). The fourth principle is a serious focus on those most at risk of accidental harm. The fifth and final principle is a sustained approach to public education and awareness, so that safety is embedded across the life course from childhood through to older age. I want to return briefly to the human reality behind all this: a child walking to school, a friend cooking a meal at home, a parent swimming in the sea on holiday—ordinary stories with tragic endings. As Members of Parliament, we all know of searingly heartbreaking, awful occurrences such as poor Natasha’s death. We have the evidence and the tools, and we have the example of other countries such as Australia and Finland, where co-ordinated Government accident prevention strategies are already in place. What is missing in the UK is the sustained national leadership to bring those together. We should not accept a situation in which tens of thousands of lives are lost each year to preventable accidents. We should not accept a system that is fragmented when lives depend on co-ordination. We should not accept avoidable suffering when the knowledge, tools and capacity to prevent it already exist. Ultimately, it is not just about policy, but about whether we are prepared to act on what we already know: that far too many lives are being lost unnecessarily, and that that does not have to be the case. Those are all non-party political points. There is no party politics in this. I appeal to the good sense and experience of all Members of this House in the hope that together we can support the Government to drive that agenda forward with vigour.
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their speeches, which I think have very fully answered the comments that I tried to make in opening the debate. I also thank colleagues across the House for their contribution to this important subject. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that she will chair the national road safety board. I very much hope that she will use that opportunity to help drive the more comprehensive approach to this matter that I set out in my opening remarks. In particular, I hope that she will ensure that it does not suffer from departmental turf exchanges. There is a real win to be achieved here by helping to drive this through the whole of Whitehall and produce a genuinely comprehensive strategy. I also hope that she will use RoSPA, which she spoke about warmly. I strongly concur with her remarks: it is a great organisation that can give the necessary perspective that we require, quite apart from being an example of the good sense and wisdom of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where it is based. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a national accident prevention strategy.
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, let me say that this is an exceptionally well-subscribed debate. The Front Benchers’ wind-ups will start at 10.30 am, so I ask that interventions be short and sharp.
Order. As 17 Members have indicated a wish to speak, I will set an immediate three-minute limit.
Order. Before I call Sir Christopher, I will set an immediate two-minute limit.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, was widely—indeed almost universally—respected and felt to have a good relationship with the previous Trump Administration, and there was no reason to believe that she would not have a good relationship with the current Trump Administration?
My hon. Friend and I could never have been described as the greatest fans of Boris Johnson. When the question of his going before the Privileges Committee came forward, the Conservatives decided that the Committee was the right body to decide whether he had misled Parliament. Nobody was calling for his resignation until its report came out; after that report, this party moved, and he went. Is it not the flip side of the coin that once the Privileges Committee has cleared the Prime Minister, as many Labour MPs believe will happen, his strength will grow? Is it not true that he has nothing to fear?
Keep it clean.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Or both.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this issue will be resolved in one or two places? It will either be resolved in the court of public opinion or in front of the Privileges Committee. It is actually in the Prime Minister’s interests to have it resolved by a cross-party Committee of this House, which would give confidence to the public that the truth had been found, that the case had been made or not, and that they would have confidence going forward. The public will make up their own mind without the Privileges Committee.
There has been a common theme in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)—it is a pleasure to follow her—and the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell). I do not really know what wings of the Labour party they are on, or what complexion of Labour they are, but I do know that the three of them are Labour people, and part of the Labour family to their very fingertips. The emotional difficulty that they felt in giving their powerful speeches was certainly tangible to Opposition Members. I hope that their right hon. and hon. Friends felt it, too. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and one or two others have mentioned, one of the hardest things in this place is when your instincts and your judgment are to go against the herd—against what your family, or the Whip, is telling you to do. Politics is a tribal thing. We stand together or we hang together, so we are told; but it was Lord Nolan, in the principles that he set out some years ago, who reminded us all that the exercise of our judgment as individual Members of Parliament is so important. It was depressing to hear the hon. Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) say, slightly tongue in cheek, “I’m just a humble Back Bencher. It is not for me to say what the whipping should be.” We are all capable of forming our own rational judgment, informed by all sorts of imperatives. One or two Labour Members have prayed in aid, as a reason why the motion should not be carried, the Humble Address. I remind colleagues from across the House, but particularly Government Members, that when we started the debate on the Humble Address motion, Government Members were being whipped to vote it down. It was only when the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House—two right hon. Gentlemen for whom I have the highest esteem and regard—and the Paymaster General listened to the debate and read the mood of not the House but Labour Members, that they realised that imposing the Whip was wrong, and that they needed to meet somewhere in the middle. Now, all of this could go away, of course, were the Prime Minister to refer himself.
My right hon. Friend has many skills; one that I have just learned of is that he is able to read the left-handed scrawl of my notes, even when he is sitting next to me, because that is the point that I am just about to come to. The hon. Member for South Shields wondered, as have one or two other Members, whether this motion is a trap set by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Members. I do not think it is, but if it were, the Government whipping operation today has baited that trap. It is the wrong thing to do. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) suggests, it makes the Prime Minister look uncertain and weak. He is not using a large parliamentary majority in this place to deliver change for the country; instead, he is turning his MPs into a human shield for himself. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East: I think the Prime Minister takes his training and experience as a lawyer very seriously. I think he takes the integrity of politics very seriously. I sometimes think the Prime Minister can be naive in presuming that everybody else takes a similarly elevated view of these things, and I think that can feed into some of his problems. One has to ask: what would the Prime Minister—an experienced lawyer—have to fear from having his name cleared and his reputation strengthened by going through a cross-party, informal process of this House? He would have nothing to fear. He would feel stronger. We understand that Labour Whips and loyal Ministers have been picking up the telephones, and accidentally on purpose bumping into people in the Lobby and elsewhere, and asking them to vote this motion down. For what it is worth, may I give some thoughts on how I would respond, were a Whip from my party to ask me to do the same?
Don’t worry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have checked what is parliamentary language and what is not. The first point I would make is one that has already been made. I was never a fan of Boris Johnson. We first met in the late 1990s; I never got him then, and he never got me, and nothing ever changed, but not even Boris Johnson thought to apply a Whip on a privileges motion. The question I would be asking the Whips, if I was the hon. Member for Smethwick or any other Labour MP, is this: does Labour really want to let Boris Johnson look like the good guy, when it comes to referrals to the Privileges Committee? That is bad politics, as far as the Labour party is concerned. The second point I would make is that the Privileges Committee can be a fulcrum, the place where this boil is lanced. It will do that dispassionately, and do it well, without fear or favour. That is what it is taught to do. It has done that in the past; it could do so now; and it will doubtless do so in the future. There is nothing to be afraid of. This is not a kangaroo court, or a Committee composed solely of people who really cannot stand the Prime Minister. It is a Committee of this House.
My hon. Friend is right. The same was true, of course, when the Privileges Committee looked at Boris Johnson’s behaviour; the majority of MPs on the Committee were Tory, and the Committee was still able to come to a judgment on the facts and the evidence.
Would my right hon. Friend forgive me if I do not? A lot of Members want to speak, so I want to make a little progress. The third compelling point is that Labour Whips and Ministers will have deployed an argument about the local elections, and elections in Wales and Scotland; they will say, “This will not do Labour any good at all.” Well, what would give a whole lot more confidence to party canvassers would be the ability to say, if this subject was raised on the doorstep, “My leader has nothing to fear. He has referred himself to the Privileges Committee—or has sought not to hinder a motion that referred him.” If Labour Members follow the advice—that might be the gentlest way of describing it—of Government Whips today, they will be creating the largest albatross to hang around their neck in these closing days before polling day. They will be asked, “Why did you vote to cover up for the Prime Minister? Why did you not do the right thing? What has the Prime Minister got to hide? Why is the Prime Minister running scared?”. It would be far better to be able to say to the floating voter, or the person havering over where to put their cross, “What confidence my party leader has! The Prime Minister is happy for this to happen. He is absolutely clear in his own mind that his integrity is unimpeachable and his honesty is unquestionable. He has not misled the House.” They would be off to the races! But this is another trap that the Labour party seems to be keen to fall into. We are all familiar, I would say to the Whips, with the idea that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the Privileges Committee be that sunlight. I can well remember the whipped vote in the previous Parliament. Thirteen of us Government Members rebelled. It was a hard and tricky vote. We came under pressure during it, and most certainly after it. However, within 24 hours, the position of the Government had changed, and they found themselves pointing in the direction of those of us who had rebelled, rather than those who had been loyal. This may be a slightly old-fashioned question to ask ourselves, but when we leave this place—either by our own choice, or by the choice of our electorate—we all want, I think, to sit back and ask ourselves: when those crunch votes came, did we do the right and honourable thing? Did we do something that left our soul and spirit feeling peaceful, or in a state of turmoil? Possibly more importantly for today and tomorrow, could we, without blushing or crossing our fingers, or trying to find some weasel words, say truthfully why anybody would vote against this motion, if we were asked that in the supermarket queue this weekend, or at the butcher’s, the fishmonger’s or wherever? If there is nothing to hide, let that absence of something to hide be shown to the Privileges Committee. The Prime Minister will be strengthened, the integrity of this place enhanced, and the honesty of politics burnished. The referral is the right thing to do. In their hearts, Labour Members know that. They should have the courage of the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East, for Nottingham East and for South Shields; they will be in jolly good company.
A moment ago, while the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister had popped out of the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman was saying something rather nice and complimentary about him. I just wanted to give him the opportunity to repeat it, now that he is back.
The Prime Minister came to this very Dispatch Box and said that “No pressure existed whatsoever” in relation to the Mandelson case. I recall Her late Majesty famously saying, “Recollections may vary”, but even from the Prime Minister I think that that is stretching the phrase, given the evidence that we have from Olly Robbins and others. I was recently reading “Black Box Thinking”, a book by Matthew Syed. At its heart, it is about the importance of learning from failure, and using that to improve. In some respects, I think the Prime Minister believes that he has done all that is necessary by changing the process for appointments, but the Prime Minister is really missing the point. The issue is what has—or, rather, has not—been done, and whether what the Prime Minister told the House was misleading and whether it amounts to a contempt of the House, bearing in mind the standards expected of Ministers in relation to ministerial accountability and in the ministerial code. This is not just an innocent mistake. The phrase “the cover-up is worse that the crime” really resonates with me at this moment, although I think the crime is equally heinous. I notice that the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) is not in his place. He has probably tired himself out, so I say to him that brevity is the soul of wit. In spite of his protestations, due process was not followed, despite the Prime Minister stating otherwise to the House. The security vetting was not carried out before Mandelson’s appointment, and the Foreign Office had to act at pace to confirm the appointment. Pressure was applied so that there would be an appointment before the presidential inauguration, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said earlier, no minutes or records were kept of a key meeting in December 2024. We have a drip-feed of constant information; eventually, like a dam, it will burst. We are waiting for this to come out. On the crime itself, it is really a question of judgment. Alarm bells should have been ringing. We in this House all knew about the Prince of Darkness. I was 10 years old when he was first dismissed. I was 13 years old when he was dismissed for his links with the Hinduja case. I grew up knowing Peter Mandelson’s background. Then we found out about his links with Russia and China, which are a national security risk—let alone his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. All this was brushed aside in a rush to appoint this man as our ambassador. I am sorely disappointed that Labour Members will be whipped to allow the Prime Minister not to go before the Privileges Committee. If he has no case to answer, he has absolutely nothing to hide. The prosecutor is only prepared to ask questions; he is not prepared to answer any. I am sorry that some Labour MPs have had to come before us and say they are scared about what will happen to them for speaking out. That is not what we should be aiming for in this House. Today’s privilege motion is about the House and its reputation. The Prime Minister has a duty to answer questions, and the Privileges Committee is the perfect mechanism by which to bring certainty on the procedure and on what has been said to the House. This House has a long and distinguished history. Using the Privileges Committee is part of preserving that history and the respect that people have for the mother of all Parliaments, and it is above party allegiances. The Prime Minister would save his MPs if only he would refer himself to the Committee.
This month, a comprehensive survey by UKHospitality showed that one in seven of our hotels, pubs and restaurants will close as a direct result of the Chancellor’s policies. Many of those businesses represent the hopes and dreams, hard work and savings of the people who set them up. Therefore, as I am permitted, rather than having the Minister come to the Dispatch Box, may I ask the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box to answer this? If it was not me standing here but one of those people who had founded a business and is now going through the gut-wrenching process of closing it because of her policies, what would she say to them?
I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate. There are clearly many issues facing park home residents across the country, and I want to touch briefly on two of them. The first is the challenge around planning and sales problems. At Devon Oaks Park, a site in my constituency, it seems that the owner has effectively mis-sold properties on varying lengths of tenancy. When it is found that he has breached the planning conditions, it is the residents who are impacted, not the park owner. Dartmoor national park is rightly seeking to enforce those conditions, but many residents will be made homeless if that issue cannot be resolved. I would be interested to know what the Minister has in mind, particularly for the review being done on the commission. Could that review look at planning and tenancy length? Ultimately, people choose to live in park homes permanently, but they can end up on a site with a time limit, or one where some properties are on a time limit and some not. It is incredibly difficult to know what they are buying into. The main challenge that I want to address, which has already been touched on, is the fuel costs for residents, particularly those who use LPG. I recently surveyed residents of Devon Oak Park and Bittaford Wood on whether the issue was impacting them, so that I could seek to do something about it. Everyone using LPG who responded had seen an increase in their costs. Most were paying up to a quarter more, and some were paying as much as half again. That equates to a bill increase of more than £100, and some are paying as much as £150 more. My view is that every constituent whose household relies on LPG should receive support equivalent to that going to households using oil. I appreciate that the Minister is in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, rather than the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but I hope he will hear those pleas. It is not difficult to understand why my constituents are seeking support. As we have heard, these households are off grid not by choice, but by circumstance. LPG prices, unlike mains gas prices, are unregulated and uncapped, and users are exposed to market volatility with no safety net. One constituent told me that they are “finding it very hard to make ends meet.” Another told me that “being pensioners does not give us much for essentials”. One constituent simply said: “Help, please.” I plead with the Minister to hear that and to commit to make that plea on behalf of park home owners to his colleagues in other Departments.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I speak in support of amendments 59, 35 and 36 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester. Those new clauses are constructive, and the Government should engage with them seriously. They seek to address the right question: how can we increase capacity, improve efficiency, preserve public trust and make better use of the system before cutting into long-standing criminal justice safeguards? The Opposition amendments would ensure that before clauses 1 to 7 are commenced, the Government must show that they have exhausted the practical alternatives, such as more sitting capacity, better use of buildings, fewer lost sitting days from late guilty pleas and prisoner transport delays, proper funding for sitting days and a serious examination of extended sitting hours. That is the right order of operations. The Government’s approach too often appears to be about restricting rights first and hoping that savings arrive later. Our approach is to build capacity and fix operational failures first and contemplate introducing legislation only then, and if truly necessary. Our approach is encapsulated perfectly in amendment 59 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. The amendment would prevent clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill from coming into force until reasonable steps have been taken “to increase Crown Court sitting capacity, including but not limited to— (a) using buildings not currently in use as courts to hear cases where cells are not needed, and (b) reducing lost sitting days as a result of late guilty pleas and prison transport delays.” That is exactly the right approach, and it is at the heart of the argument we have made throughout proceedings. The Government say that the backlog is so bad that they must remove the right to elect a jury trial, create judge-alone trials, expand magistrates’ sentencing powers and restrict appeals. We say that before they do any of that, they should show us that they have used all the practical means already available to increase capacity and reduce wasted court time. We are seeking to draw attention to the tangible, everyday causes of courtroom delay, which, as the Minister well knows, is often about the case not being ready, defendants not arriving, late pleas, poor listing, lack of courtrooms or staff, or failure to use the estate properly. If those are the root causes of inefficiency, it is extraordinary to reach first for the curtailment of our ancient right to jury trial rather than for more mundane operational fixes. I would go as far as to suggest that the evidence that the Committee has received from the Bar Council could almost have been written in support of the amendment. It says that the current backlog was not caused by the availability of jury trials. It supports “opening all…courts so they can hear cases”, “intense court listing” and “proactive” CPS “case ownership”, “revising” the PECS contract so that “defendants are delivered to the dock on time”, “better use of technology” and “proper resourcing”. It also specifically identifies PECS as a problem, and warns that the Government’s impact assessment does not contain enough modelling on the changes needed to make prisoner transport work under the new system. Amendment 59 also references late guilty pleas. Late pleas waste enormous amounts of time. They consume preparation time, courtroom hours, witness time and judicial energy that is better spent elsewhere. If the Government can reduce late pleas by better case progression, better early engagement or stronger listing discipline, that should happen before constitutional rights are reduced. I am in danger of repeating myself, but this point is central to the Opposition’s position: it is far more sensible to make the existing system work properly than to redesign it around its current inefficiencies. Another question we should ask is whether every possible physical capacity option has been explored. Are there hearings that do not require cells and could be heard in other suitable buildings? Are there underused spaces in the existing estate? Are there ways to free Crown courtrooms by moving appropriate administrative or preliminary business elsewhere? Those are practical questions to which I have not seen a satisfactory answer. It seems logical that the Government should be required to answer them before commencing clauses 1 to 7. In essence, if the Government are minded to oppose this amendment, they are effectively saying that they are content to shred legal rights before making the effort to prove that they have exhausted all possible operational reform first. That is the wrong way around. That is also the crux of our case for amendment 35, which was also tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. It would prevent clauses 1 to 7 from coming into force until three conditions have been met. First, the Lord Chancellor must have “provided funding for at least 130,000 sitting days in the Crown Court in the financial year following the coming into force of this Act”. Secondly, HMCTS must have assessed that “the Crown court has, so far as possible, used that allocation of sitting days”. Thirdly, the Lord Chancellor must have “made a statement to the House of Commons that the funding provided…has not reduced the number of cases pending trial in the Crown Court compared with the start of the financial year.” Put as simply as possible, before the Government curtail fundamental safeguards in the criminal justice system, they should first fund and use the Crown court at maximum practical capacity. If that works, there is no need for clauses 1 to 7. If it does not, Ministers can come back to Parliament having at least proven that the obvious operational fix was seriously attempted. One of the persistent weaknesses in the Government’s case thus far has been the “do nothing” comparison. Too often, the Government present the Bill in the context of a binary choice: do nothing, or accept the package as it is. But that is a false choice; there are other options. One of the most obvious is to run the Crown court at full sitting capacity and see what happens. The Bar Council has welcomed the removal of the cap on sitting days and has long argued that courts should sit at maximum capacity. If increased sitting days are now being funded, those additional days should be allowed to take effect before Ministers demand more controversial, and likely irreversible, changes. The Institute for Government has also weighed in on this issue. It says: “There is a lot of uncertainty attached to the potential benefits of the government’s proposed reforms.” It also says that there is a serious risk that these reforms could backfire and actually cause a decline in court performance. It identifies productivity as central, noting that the assumptions behind the Government’s proposed savings are “uncertain”. If boosting productivity and increasing sitting capacity are critical, then amendment 35 is exactly the right kind of test. Let us see whether properly funded sitting days can reduce the backlog before proceeding with more radical measures. Amendment 35 is therefore one of the strongest amendments we are considering today. It does not deny the reality of the backlog—the Opposition never have. Rather, it confronts it directly. It does not say, “Do nothing,” it says, “Do the obvious thing first—fund the Crown court, use the capacity, report back and only then consider whether more fundamental changes are genuinely necessary.” I also support amendment 36, also tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. It would prevent the Lord Chancellor from “bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until he has…undertaken a consultation on the potential benefits of introducing extended sitting hours in the Crown Court, and…laid before Parliament a report on the outcome”. The consultation would have to consider “potential rates of fees and remuneration for legal professionals and court staff working extended hours” and the availability of HMCTS staff. The amendment is a reasonable one. It simply requires the Government to consult and report before commencing clauses 1 to 7. Given the scale of the changes the Government are asking us to approve, that is not an excessive demand, in my view. The amendment also seeks to address one of the practical concerns around extended sitting hours. It recognises that extended hours may have benefits but also inherent costs. It explicitly requires consideration of remuneration and staff availability. We all understand that we cannot run a court system merely by wishing it to sit longer. Judges, advocates, court staff, legal professionals, witnesses and support services all have to be able to make the model work. If hours are to be extended, that must be properly resourced. That is precisely why a consultation is needed. The Government should not be able to say on the one hand that extended hours are too complicated to consider, while on the other hand pressing ahead with sweeping reforms to jury trial and appeal rights. If their position is that extended hours are impractical, Ministers should set out the evidence. If extended hours are practical in some settings, Ministers should explain where and how. If remuneration is the problem, the Government should consult on it. If staffing is the problem, they should say so. What the Government should not do is ignore the question altogether, as they seem to have done here. There is also a simple point of fairness. The Government are asking defendants, victims, witnesses, lawyers and the public to accept major changes to the criminal process. They should therefore be willing to accept a much smaller burden: to consult, report and explain why a less constitutionally disruptive capacity measure is or is not viable. Taken alongside amendments 59 and 35, amendment 36 offers a coherent and moderate alternative path forward: build capacity first, fund sitting days first, examine extended hours first, fix operational problems first and only then ask Parliament to consider whether the more drastic provisions in clauses 1 to 7 are necessary. That is a measured and responsible approach that the Government should consider accepting. I will speak briefly to new clauses 3, 4, 5, 13, 17 and 22, which would improve the Bill. They focus on delivering capacity, efficiency, transparency, public trust and practical reform in line with what the Opposition also seek to achieve. New clause 3 would allow certain Crown court locations or courtrooms to operate as extended-capacity courts, with a morning session from 9 am to 1 pm and an afternoon session from 2 pm to 6 pm. The purpose of that is to allow two different cases to be heard in the same courtroom on the same day. That is clearly a significant operational proposal, and while the principle is sound, it raises serious questions about the availability of judges, court staff, interpreters, security and CPS staff. It also raises questions about remuneration, because the criminal Bar, solicitors and court staff are already under enormous strain. A justice system running on exhausted people will not produce better justice simply because the building stays open for longer. We need to consider all those things at the same time. New clause 3 is aimed at the right problem: capacity. The Government are asking us to make very large changes to jury trials, allocation and appeals. Before they do that, they should be able to show that every realistic capacity option has been explored. If courtrooms can be used more intensively without compromising fairness, quality or the welfare of those involved, that should at least be examined. The Bar Council’s evidence is clear that the backlog has not been caused by jury trials but by under-investment, poor management of the estate, failures in prisoner transport, listing problems, technology issues and inadequate resourcing. New clause 3 seeks to address that; it asks how we increase throughput while keeping the basic architecture of justice intact. New clause 4 takes a more cautious approach, and for that reason, it may be the more attractive version of the idea. It would require an independent report into the feasibility of holding two trials a day in designated courtrooms, followed by a Government response and proposals for a pilot, if appropriate. That seems to be a serious and reasonable way to proceed. It does not assume that the model will work: it asks for independent work; evidence; consideration of the effect on defendants, victims, witnesses, judges, practitioners and staff; and an assessment of cost and resource implications. New clause 5 would require the Lord Chancellor to publish annual targets for reducing the Crown court backlog, both nationally and in each HMCTS region, and to report to Parliament on progress. Again, that appears useful and sensible. If backlog reduction is the central justification for the Bill, Ministers should be willing to define what success looks like and be judged against it. The regional element is especially important. We know that the backlog is not the same everywhere, and it is undeniable that some court centres have done better than others, sometimes because of stronger local leadership, better listing or more effective case progression. Others face particular estate, staffing or operational problems, and a national figure alone can hide those differences. If the Government are relying on predicted reductions of sittings days and caseload, Parliament should be able to see whether those predicted benefits are actually being delivered, and where they are and are not being delivered.
It is wonderful to hear the Minister’s enthusiasm for the changes, but if she is so confident that they will deliver that benefit, why was she not willing to start with a pilot, or even agree to a sunset clause?
10. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of recent changes to business property relief on levels of investment by family-owned businesses.
I agree with the Minister, of course, that Margaret Thatcher really was the sunny uplands of this country. Small and medium-sized enterprises provide the backbone for our economy in Bromley and Biggin Hill. Many of those businesses are still family owned, suffering from the slew of taxation from this Labour Government. Family Business UK’s analysis, published just last month, said that 57% of businesses are still suffering from the business property relief that, despite the slight U-turn that the Minister alluded to, is still impacting their business. Does the Minister agree that the best way to growth is to support small businesses and not to tax them out of existence?
Will the hon. Member give way?
Referring to the whiff that the public may pick up, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister’s concern could be that the Privileges Committee will deliver a result that he might not like?
I just want to make sure that I can follow the hon. Gentleman’s logical structure. When he said that the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure whatever, he meant that there was no pressure whatever apart from the various types of pressure—is that right?
I am genuinely listening to the hon. Member’s logical process as he ratiocinates through it. I humbly say that we could set this evidence out in the Privileges Committee. In terms of no pressure whatsoever being exerted—and he is talking about the kinds of pressure exerted that that did not include—could he give examples of the kind of pressures that were not exerted?
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we continue to protect those greenfield sites, as we do in my constituency and, indeed, as Conservative councils do across the country? Does he agree that it is sad that the Reform candidate for the Mayor of London disagrees and wants to build over some of our precious green-belt land?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is a pleasure to see so many Members in this debate. It is always ominous to have my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), sitting next to me in a debate—I do not know whether that is an expectation of great things or a sign that there will be a meeting without coffee. Might I say that he made a very, very good speech? I hope the Minister takes it on board. In all seriousness, I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate on Government support for park home owners. He introduced the issue in a humorous way, but also in a very serious, constructive way. I understand that he has a busy day, as he is also introducing a ten-minute rule Bill, which is a testament to the way he represents his Rushcliffe constituents. I suspect he will also have a very busy evening. The hon. Gentleman is right to bring up this issue, as about 159,000 people live in mobile or park homes across 1,800 sites. We all recognise that park homes present themselves as an attractive choice for some people, and are therefore an important part of the national housing market. Colleagues across the House have made excellent speeches, but I would like to mention a few from Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) said that everybody would automatically pick a park home site in South Shropshire, but I politely disagree. Given that we have the beautiful Solent on the south coast, I suspect that many people would choose one of the many park home sites in my Hamble Valley constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) rightly mentioned fuel costs, which came up throughout the debate. I will come to that in a minute, and I hope the Minister will expand on that. She spoke about planning enforcement and raised a specific case, and it important that we get that right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned the lack of expertise in local planning authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has done a huge amount of work in this space. In the last Parliament, I was delighted to co-sign his Bill, and I was pleased that the previous Government backed it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke about the huge problems that many park home owners face. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire mentioned the sporadic nature of maintenance on sites across the country. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is absolutely right to bring this important topic to light. Park homes are an often overlooked part of our housing sector that provide a comfortable living space and a community-oriented way of life. They are particularly valued by our older members of society, who have worked hard and deserve suitable protections and support. I think all of us here can agree that home ownership brings with it not just a sense of accomplishment, but an expectation of security and peace of mind, yet for many park home residents that expectation is not always met, particularly when their home sits on a site run by an unscrupulous operator. We have a duty to ensure that someone who has invested their life savings in a home does not find themselves facing unpredictable costs or unclear rights. I am proud that the last Government recognised that more had to be done to protect park home owners’ rights and to support residents’ awareness of both their rights and the responsibilities. After a thorough review of the mobile or park homes legislation, the previous Government—this was mentioned on both sides of the Chamber—brought forward legislation to make it a legal requirement for a site owner or manager to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to manage a mobile home site. Too often, park home residents have been asked to pay significant sums, only to find that site maintenance falls short of what they have every right to expect. That is not just disappointing; it is fundamentally unfair. If operators are to charge those fees, they must also meet their clear responsibility to keep sites safe, well maintained and fit for purpose. As I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch promoted the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023. That delivered important economic relief for park home residents. Changing the basis for pitch fee increases from the retail prices index to the generally lower consumer prices index ensures that annual rises are more proportionate and fairer. That change had long been called for by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign. Many Members across the Chamber raised the issue of the 10% commission on the sale of a park home. The last Government began the important process of researching the potential impact of a change to the maximum commission paid on such a sale. I am watching with interest this Government’s efforts to look in greater detail at commission payments and I hope that the Minister will look at that with great scrutiny—I know that he will, given the way he conducts himself. We look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with. A burden that park home owners face—this genuinely is not a political point, as my party looked into the issue when we were in government, and it was apparent that there was no straightforward fix—is that they are often among the hardest hit when it comes to energy costs. That is largely because many do not have the freedom to choose their own energy supplier, leaving them more exposed to higher prices and less competitive markets. I note that towards the end of last year, Ofgem reignited efforts to look into this issue through a call for evidence on the rules around the resale of gas and electricity and the maximum resale price arrangements. The issue was last reviewed in 2001, so I look forward to looking into the findings when they are published. We must recognise that energy costs for park home residents are not shaped only by resale arrangements. Unlike households on the mains gas and electricity network, which benefit from the energy price cap, many park homes rely on heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas to heat their homes and water, so I welcome the Government’s commitment of £53 million to support households reliant on heating oil, in particular low-income families, who are most affected. It is right that support is targeted where need is greatest. I note that in England, that funding will be delivered through local authorities via the crisis and resilience fund, which came into effect on 1 April. However, I remain concerned that there is still no clear confirmation as to whether park home residents will be eligible for that support. Given the specific vulnerabilities that they face in relation to energy supply and pricing, I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point directly in his response this morning. We have seen how difficult it can be to ensure that people off grid actually receive and benefit from funding support. That was a lesson learned in 2022, when similar measures to support similar groups were brought in after the shocks from the start of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I hope that the Minister will commit to monitoring the efficiency of funding distribution. Members here today, particularly the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, outlined several issues that park home owners face and the importance of them receiving the appropriate Government support. Supporting park home owners is about providing more protections and security for the residents who live in these communities, and supporting the wider housing market. It requires cross-party support—something that as a shadow Housing Minister I commit to providing when the Government come forward with their proposals. The Minister gave me a wry smile, but it is now on the record that if the Government come forward with sensible proposals to tackle this issue, then on a cross-party basis we will look at that seriously. It does require cross-party support, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan to provide continued and accelerated support, so that park home owners across the country, including in my constituency of Hamble Valley, get the services they deserve for the money they have saved.