5,578 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I take the point that the scheme should not be applied retrospectively, but let us take the example of student loans: students take out loans on terms that are then changed in the future. If UK students have to deal with that, why should it be any different for asylum provisions?
Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?
I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business. As the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others said yesterday, in this week of the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, let us never forget its victims, including 116 children, and its terrible cost to their families and their community. On a far happier note, the House will shortly come together in celebration of the Clerk on his retirement, but let me pay a personal tribute to Tom now for his unfailing genius, sense of service and courtesy to the House, and the assistance he has given us all as Members over 30 years. As a jobbing trumpeter, coming very much from the opposite end of the quality spectrum, I can testify that Tom is a superb jazz pianist. Like any great jazzer, he has a remarkable ability to improvise under pressure while never losing sight of the underlying material—as in the gig, so at the Table. That is no small achievement with 650 would-be Miles Davises all playing in different keys.
Some are more in tune than others, Mr Speaker. Among Tom’s heroes is Art Tatum, who was famous for taking a familiar tune and turning it into something almost unrecognisable. Tom has often performed the reverse feat with Members’ legislative amendments: taking something almost unrecognisable and turning it into something more familiar.<span id="1289" class="column-number" data-column-number="1289"></span> Mr Speaker, I hope that you and the Leader of the House will forgive another toot from me on my constituency trumpet. This week has seen the publication of a brilliantly positive new report by Policy Exchange on our new engineering university in Hereford, NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering. Among other things, the report highlights that, thanks to the university’s accelerated degrees, it offers at least 20% better value for money for students than elsewhere. For local students, it is almost half the cost of an equivalent chartered engineering degree anywhere else. The report goes further—I think this is a matter of general interest to the House—by identifying 57 suitable towns and cities across the UK, including Hartlepool, Grimsby, Barnsley, Burnley and Scunthorpe in the north alone, in which the model could be rolled out across the country. I would be delighted to discuss with colleagues how we could do so with any areas and constituencies that may be interested. I end, if I may, on a more serious note. In May 2024, Lord Walney’s report, “Protecting our Democracy from Coercion”, made more than 40 recommendations to tackle political intimidation and disruptive extremism. More than two years into their term of office, this Government have yet to respond fully; indeed, Ministers abolished Lord Walney’s position last year. When they did so, they promised that his report would continue to shape the Government’s approach to political violence, yet they rejected key recommendations in passing the Crime and Policing Act 2026, including stronger powers to prevent particularly harmful marches. They did that despite very strong appeals from Jewish community groups facing the present rising tide of antisemitism—groups that are still more concerned, be it said, after the Green party’s appalling resolution that Zionism is racism. The threat is clear, and I know that this is an issue of particular concern to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us. Ninety-six per cent of Members of Parliament responding to the Speaker’s Conference in 2025 reported harassment, intimidation or abuse. It is a matter of public record that, last September, arson destroyed the constituency office of one of our colleagues, and that another and their son received death threats. Peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy, of course, but so is the right of every person to live free from intimidation, and the right of every elected representative and their staff to be able to serve without intimidation, abuse or coercion. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to publish a full, recommendation-by-recommendation, response to Lord Walney’s report, and will he arrange a debate in Government time on that response so that the House can collectively scrutinise what the Government are doing and propose to do to meet these dreadful threats?
In April last year, the RAF joined the US’s Operation Rough Rider to degrade Houthi ballistic missile and drone attacks. At the time, I asked the then Secretary of State to ensure that that was sustained action, rather than ad hoc action. Does the Minister regret that it was not sustained? If defensive action does not include striking potential launch sites, how will it make any difference at all?
Mr Speaker, may I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Helen Haines, who is a close personal friend of our mutual friend, Speaker Milton Dick? I am in touch with Milton for progress on her condition, and our thoughts and prayers are with her and her family. Mr Speaker, I know how important it is to you that Ministers are scrutinised properly by this House, so I am sure that you will join in my disappointment at learning that the Home Secretary’s diary office claim that there is not a single moment between now and Christmas when the Home Secretary can come in front of the Home Affairs Committee. If that is the case, then since her appointment in October 2025, she will have appeared only twice in the period up to the end of the year. The Liaison Committee wrote to the Leader of the House about this matter and I know that he has responded to those comments, but will he use his good office to sit <span id="1295" class="column-number" data-column-number="1295"></span>down with the Home Secretary’s diary secretary to see whether he can find a space for her to come and see the Home Affairs Committee? We will be very flexible—we can find a time and date that suits her—but we would really like to see her before Christmas, and I hope that the Leader of the House can help us facilitate that.
<Question HRSContentId="{6DD44E48-4F83-41BB-AC63-FA07CFD982AA}">4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{E1329B1D-C8F9-4D31-8A4C-079F1F1A9DDA}">What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement on the farming sector.</QuestionText> </Question>
England has become a world leader in gene editing and precision breeding. That has increased crop yields and eradicated diseases, and it helps to protect domestic, and potentially global, food security. But much of this technology is banned in the European Union, and dynamic alignment will mean that we cannot use it. What representations has the Minister made to the Cabinet Office and to Ministers in negotiations with the European Union to ensure that gene editing and our world-leading technologies are protected?
I support the decision to stand alongside our allies in Saudi Arabia, but additional deployment requires sufficient resourcing. Will the Minister confirm that despite the former Secretary of State, now the Chancellor, saying in his resignation letter that the Ministry of Defence needs 3% by 2030, the MOD spokesman’s comments yesterday state that that commitment will not be met by that date?
On Saturday afternoon, Bridlington Town FC will take on Curzon Ashton in the FA trophy first round proper—the first time the club has reached that stage of the competition in 22 years. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Brid all the very best on Saturday afternoon in the FA trophy, and can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of sports clubs and local communities?
<Question HRSContentId="{2D771F9F-8443-4522-8501-957C766DF88A}">8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{48000886-5ECC-476C-B254-D393A089C03A}">What assessment the commissioners have made of the adequacy of the places of worship renewal fund in supporting churches in suburban areas.</QuestionText> </Question>
The Houthis in Yemen were largely quiet for four years, but Yemen is one of those disastrous areas where humanitarian aid is desperately needed. Now that the Houthis have come <span id="1286" class="column-number" data-column-number="1286"></span>out and attacked at the behest of Iran, what action are the Government taking to build a coalition of forces to defeat the Houthis—not contain them but actually defeat them—so that the threat that they pose to the region is minimised or eradicated? The reality is that Iran is ordering their position in order to disrupt the shipping lanes of the world.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. Clearly, apart from Monday, Backbench business will be coming up in the Chamber only after we come back from the recess. If we are granted time on Thursday 12 November, we will have Select Committee statements from the Health and Social Care Committee and the Defence Committee, followed by a debate on the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, followed by a debate on the Nolan principles, which many people have asked for. In Westminster Hall on Tuesday 27 October, there will be a debate on recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage. On Thursday 29 October, there will be a debate on mandatory safeguarded 24/7 helipads at major trauma centres, followed by a debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. On Tuesday 3 November, there will be a debate on the findings of the Milburn review. When we come back after the recess, on Tuesday 10 November, there will be a debate on antisocial behaviour. I remind Members that because the House will be sitting Monday hours on that day, that debate will start at 11.30 am and not 9.30 am as usual. May I gently nudge the Leader of the House? We are still awaiting the extra Labour member of the Backbench Business Committee. One of the Government members is on long-term deployment in our forces, and another colleague had a terrible accident and therefore is on crutches and finds it difficult to get the meetings, so we have challenges making sure we are quorate to consider the business. The situation in Nepal continues to be catastrophic. Often, when there is a disaster such as flooding, everyone says, “We must do something,” and then nothing else happens. I pay tribute to Benji and Nic Gould, two boys aged 11 and nine, who at the HarroWall climbing centre climbed the equivalent of going to Everest base camp and raised £3,500 for charity. I think we should congratulate them—I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in doing so—and also say that we need to continue to our work to assist the great people of Nepal.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will try to be as efficient as I can, given the time. As we have heard, clause 23 gives a new power to the Home Secretary that requires people to pay towards the cost of any asylum support they have received, once they are able to do so. In contrast to the hon. Member <span id="330" class="column-number" data-column-number="330"></span>for Brighton Pavilion—Members will not be surprised to hear this—this does not make me uncomfortable. I reject the notion that it is a refugee tax; I think that is just scaremongering Green campaign nonsense. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I said I was going to be efficient, so I will not take an intervention. Our constituents pay considerable amounts of taxation, and we are spending incredible sums on the asylum support system. It is entirely reasonable, and fair to the British taxpayer, that people who have received support should contribute to that cost. This group contains three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about how much people should pay, three Government amendments about waivers and insolvency, and amendment 141, which I tabled, about what happens when people do not pay; Members will not be surprised to hear that we will be opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Together, they give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee something that the Bill does not: what the scheme will actually charge and how it will operate.
The hon. Member has proved my point: if you turn up to scrutiny meetings and make your point, sometimes the Government listen. They did so by taking on one of my earlier amendments. Turning up and contributing is helpful.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a refugee tax. On 18 March 2025, Labour Members voted down that new clause 37. The then Minister told that Committee that it was not sufficiently developed to be put into primary legislation. Interestingly, we heard the same criticism from witnesses about clause 23 of this Bill, and <span id="331" class="column-number" data-column-number="331"></span>even the Government’s own impact assessment rates the impact of these measures as “uncertain”. I ask the Minister what amount and what income threshold the Government intend to set. The Home Office has spoken of £10,000; will that be a flat rate per adult, and over what period? How will the threshold be set so that the charge does not deter people from taking work or declaring their earnings—a risk that the Government’s own impact assessment identified? Amendment 76 would prevent any payment that would leave a person or household with below 60% of median household income. Clause 23(5) already provides that no one will be required to pay if it would make them “destitute”. Amendment 76 would go far beyond destitution: with a 60% median test, very few people who had been supported by taxpayers would ever pay anything; it would turn into a repayment scheme in name only. Amendment 81 would cut the amount owed by 20% for every 30 days beyond six months that the Home Office took to decide a claim. I understand the point being made—delays cost money and are not the claimant’s fault—but it is the taxpayer who has paid for those months, and the answer to delays is making faster decisions, not giving a discount. What is the current average time to an initial decision, and what is the Government’s target? Amendment 79 would cap repayments at the cost of the support received. I would be surprised if the Government intend anything else. Will the Minister confirm that nobody will be asked to repay more than the support they receive, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion? If so, the amendment is unnecessary. Government amendment 124 will enable repayments to be reduced, waived or refunded, including by giving the Secretary of State discretion. Amendments 125 and 126 deal with insolvency. The supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that the powers will be subject to the negative procedure because they can only benefit individuals. The Opposition will not oppose the measures, but the use of a discretion to waive, exercised on a case by case basis and never reported, is how schemes like this quietly stop working. What criteria will govern waivers? Will the number and value of waivers be published each year? Will a person be able to clear the debt by making themselves bankrupt? The Committee is entitled to know whether the scheme will ever recover meaningful sums. Migration Observatory expects that unless the threshold is set significantly below the minimum wage, the number of people earning enough to reach it will be relatively small. That is set against the enormous cost to the British taxpayer. Around 97,500 asylum seekers receive taxpayer-funded support, costing the taxpayer roughly £4 billion in 2024-25. Simple division of that figure suggests that the costs are close to £40,000 a year per person supported. A £10,000 contribution, if it were ever collected, would recover only a small proportion of the initial cost. During the Committee’s oral evidence session, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West asked the Minister what measurable difference the Bill will make, she said:<span id="332" class="column-number" data-column-number="332"></span> “I do not want to put a specific figure on it.”<span id="vol_col72" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="72" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="82E087C4-25BB-4C3D-990A-8A5D4FF18394"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 72, Q127.]</span> Can she do so now? How many people do the Government expect to pay? How much will be recovered each year, and over what period? How much will it cost to build and run the system? Given that the Government do not have a good history of running systems, can she assure us that the scheme will raise more money than it costs? Amendment 141, tabled in my name, would ensure that where an individual has been required to repay asylum support costs, any unpaid amount can be considered when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement. That would give the scheme more weight by providing that the debt will influence settlement decisions until it is paid off. If amendment 141 is not made, the consequence of not paying will depend on earned settlement rules that have not been laid before Parliament. Will the Government support the amendment? The Opposition oppose amendments 81, 76 and 79, but not Government amendments 124 to 126. As I mentioned, the principle of clause 23 was originally in a Conservative proposition, so of course we support it, but our concern is that a repayment scheme with discretionary waivers and no consequences for non-payment will be ineffective. We look for assurance from the Minister on that. I will be pressing amendment 141 to a Division.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in <span id="345" class="column-number" data-column-number="345"></span>the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142. Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who “started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”. That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges? Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those? Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force. As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force. Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Amendments 77 and 50 would exempt anyone who was under 21 or 18, respectively, at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout. That would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both those amendments.<span id="346" class="column-number" data-column-number="346"></span> Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal. Mr Featonby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. He said that “the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection.”<span id="vol_col32" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="32" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="F9A2407E-FB16-4303-8961-AA10A2673FFF"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 32, Q53.]</span> Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay, and would reward the cases that took the longest. Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognised victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. Those are sensitive cases, and the Government have said that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. The right way to decide those exemptions is in regulations that the House has seen and approved, not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Which categories will the Government exempt, and will draft exemption regulations be provided before Report? Amendment 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person’s liability upon death or permanent incapacity, when they reach 65, or 10 years after their support ended. There is a fair question underneath that. Student loans, which are the basis for the model that we proposed, are written off after a set period, but a 10-year write-off that starts when support ends would allow anyone to wait out the debt and simply not pay. The amendment is far too wide, and we will oppose it. Do the Government intend to have any write-off period at all, and if so what? Finally, the Opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80. The clause already exempts everyone now in the system for life and allows further exemptions by negative instrument. Amendment 139 would close the first gap and amendment 142 would close the second. I will press amendment 139 to a Division.
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert— “(7) This section may not be brought fully into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament— (a) a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under subsection (4), and (b) an estimate, for each of the first five years after this section comes fully into force, of— (i) the number of persons expected to be required to make payments under subsection (3), (ii) the sums expected to be recovered, and (iii) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.” <em>This amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations for the asylum support repayment scheme, together with an estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run, before the scheme is brought into force.</em>
Clause 23 gives the Home Secretary a new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they are able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The Opposition supports both clauses, so my questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle; they are about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all—and when. Amendment 140 would mean that clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the Government have published and laid the draft regulations and a five-year estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run. That is not an obstacle to the scheme—it is the minimum that Parliament needs in order to judge whether it will work effectively. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft regulations and those estimates before the clause commences? If she does, I will not press the amendment to a vote. Clause 23(1) applies the scheme to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt. Subsection (2) defines asylum support. Subsection (3) is the core power: the Secretary of State “may” require payments. Subsection (4) leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection (5) provides that no one can be required to pay if it would make them destitute. Subsection (6) exempts people who were children throughout, anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force, and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23. It sets out how the charge can reflect support given to dependants, allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect it, allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose, and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. Clause 23 is the principle, which we support; clause 24 is where we assess whether any money will actually be collected. We agree with the principle, but the Government have not provided the detail that we expect. There is no amount detailed in the Bill. There is no threshold. There is no repayment period. There is no collection model. All of that is left to regulations that we are yet to see. If our new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, I invite the Minister to explain what makes clause 23 in this Bill developed enough now. The explanatory notes state that the power applies to those “who have had their case concluded”; but that condition is not in the clause. Can payments be required while a claim or appeal is outstanding from people with savings, for example, and how does that relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November? The Home Office says that the measure will ensure that refused asylum seekers “take responsibility for the financial impact of their presence in this country”,<span id="352" class="column-number" data-column-number="352"></span> but a refused claimant who remains here unlawfully is not going to be paying through pay-as-you-earn. How much do the Government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay? Why does the definition in clause 23(2) leave out section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—initial accommodation, including hotels—so that time spent there appears to be free of charge? Subsection (4) allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe that this is the correct model. It is how student loans are recovered—automatically, through the pay packet, once earnings pass a certain threshold. It is the model the Opposition proposed. However, subsection (4) is only an enabling power; it says that regulations “may” provide for HMRC collection. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the Government describe collection as a more technical and administrative matter. Has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PAYE by default, as it is for student loans, and from what date will it happen?
<Question HRSContentId="{9B563076-DC7A-4723-AC00-39FE0DA65B4A}">7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{8A931F45-3BBA-4CC6-BEAF-53CD293908C3}">What assessment the Local Government Boundary Commission for England has made of the potential impact of the <span id="1279" class="column-number" data-column-number="1279"></span>pause of local government reorganisation on boundary reviews in the areas involved.</QuestionText> </Question>
The Government’s management of local government reorganisation must have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Can my right hon. and learned Friend advise, if not on the Floor of the House, in writing, whether there is also a financial cost to the Local Government Boundary Commission?
After 18 months of dither and delay, and cuts to the farming budget, Labour’s shambolic SFI scheme closed within hours, leaving farmers unable to access funding to protect and restore nature. We now know, through freedom of information requests, that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs knew the scheme could collapse within hours, yet the Government pressed ahead regardless. Now, environmental charities, including the Rivers Trust, are warning that that will undermine nature recovery. Does the Secretary of State recognise that by failing the custodians of our countryside, she is failing nature too?
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I held a similar one earlier this year on 4 February, in which I raised issues regarding Royal Mail, particularly with respect to the WV15 and WV16 postcodes in my constituency, where people are waiting for two, three and sometimes four weeks to receive mail. Does she agree that that situation is completely unacceptable and must change, because my constituents, like many other people, feel that they really do not matter to Royal Mail?
The Minister said in reply to the shadow Secretary of State that the delay in the decision on Jackdaw was fiscally neutral because, in essence, the investment was made at risk.
The Minister shakes his head, but he said that there was no cost from the delay. Does he accept that the delay in a decision on Rosebank comes at a cost, both in terms of investment and in terms of taxpayer revenue? If so, will he set out what that cost is, in revenue, ahead of the Budget?
On the issue of postwomen and postmen, in areas such as mine, the most rural areas of our country, those people are a lifeline. They are often the only people whom older people meet in a day, but a postman in my constituency has been taken to an employment tribunal because he helped to deliver a local parish magazine in the middle of nowhere —just to be a help. Those are sometimes the only people my constituents meet, so as the hon. Lady campaigns on this issue, will she press for recognition of the social role that postwomen and postmen play throughout the country, on behalf of many of our constituents?
Do the Government now accept that the former Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero got this important policy seriously wrong, and if so, why was he promoted to become Foreign Secretary?
I congratulate the Secretary of State on what, in my opinion, is the best statement I have heard from any Government Minister on any subject since the last general election. It has rightly brought forth supportive comments from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and from Back Benchers. I have an interest in the question of impartiality in schools. It is rather disconcerting to realise that 40 years ago, in May 1986, I was working with a group of peers, led by Caroline Cox—Baroness Cox—and the late professor Lord Beloff, to amend the 1986 Education Bill. Two provisions put forward in that Bill were carried forward as sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996. Section 406 bans political indoctrination in schools, and section 407 lays down that, when politically contentious subjects are discussed in schools, they must be presented in a balanced and appropriate way, with opposing views fairly discussed. May I suggest that the Secretary of State, when she writes to all schools, should include, as an annexe, a single page setting out the provisions of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Act, because they are as germane today as they were when first formulated for the previous Act 40 years ago?
<Question HRSContentId="{A333C655-2A4B-41D5-B68E-92078B4E5803}">Q13. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{DE5E19DB-D52B-4DD7-B4B9-862D276691DF}"></QuestionText>Unlike the Government’s shameful attempts to hand over the sovereignty of the strategically important <span id="1114" class="column-number" data-column-number="1114"></span>Chagos islands, will the Prime Minister confirm that this time the Government will strongly oppose the case being made by the Government of Argentina to the international tribunal to try to stop the exploitation of oil reserves around the Falkland Islands, which is authorised by the United Kingdom?</Question>
<Question HRSContentId="{2B787D4D-E18C-4653-B532-B8B9787D6742}">Q5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{41D6F9ED-9691-4F19-A898-B2E76D6C12C9}"></QuestionText>Last week, the Prime Minister was kind enough to pay me a compliment, so let me return the favour. When he was Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Greater Manchester police had more police officers than before he was appointed. When I was Home Secretary, Essex police had more officers than at any point in its history. However, over the last 10 years, the Metropolitan police has failed to recruit, and police numbers have fallen. So what is it that he was able to get right and that I was able to get right, but that Sadiq Khan catastrophically has failed to get right?</Question>
I commend the right hon. Lady for her statement. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that it is a remarkable statement and I commend Sir David Bell’s review. I also commend the response by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) from the Opposition Dispatch Box. In 2004, I was asked, with others, by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to carry out a review of antisemitism in the UK. What we discovered then was an appalling rise, even though it had not been figured out prior to that, and we made our recommendation. The problem is that each generation seems to have to keep on looking at this issue and making recommendations, yet it erupts again. The Green party’s terrible conference motion is a part of that problem: isolate them, blame them, attack them, ban them. I suggest that the Government put into every school, where teachers are reluctant to engage, Pastor Niemöller’s poem. The critical lines are: “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew… Then they came for me”.
On a point of order, Ms Cummins. I have a question about the possible hybridity of this Bill. A hybrid Bill is when a Government Bill—a public Bill—is used to affect only one person. As we see in paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes, “The Prime Minister professes the Roman Catholic faith. He is therefore prevented from fulfilling his constitutional role”— exactly. The Bill is therefore specifically referring to one person. I know that in answer, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might say that this will also benefit Catholics and Jews in the future, but we have to deal with the situation as we find it now. We cannot deal with hypothetical issues. It is rather as if we had a Bill to address a condition that has affected only one person in the past 500 years. Of course, we have not had a Catholic Prime Minister for 500 years. Indeed, there was not a Prime Minister who was Catholic 500 years ago; there was not even a Prime Minister 500 years ago. The chance is therefore vanishingly small that in the immediate future, this Bill will be activated. Of course, I never try to cause trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am not asking for an answer now, but I think it is a moot point that you might ask your Clerks to investigate.
Surely it will remain on the statute book that a member of the royal family cannot marry a Roman Catholic and inherit the Crown?
Before I begin my speech, I had better declare an interest, because I know it is not widely known that I am a Roman Catholic. I do not oppose the Bill. The discrimination that we suffered for centuries was absolutely horrible. It was not discrimination as we understand it in the modern world—my direct ancestor, the blessed Richard Leigh, was hung, drawn and quartered simply for denying that Elizabeth I should be the head of the Church in England. Obviously, I welcome anything that ends discrimination. However, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I make a few points to try to find out why he is moving this Bill now. Obviously, it is because we have a Catholic Prime Minister, but as the Opposition spokesman said, there has been little enthusiasm for such legislation until now. If we are to have such a Bill, particularly when there are many other pressing matters, it should achieve something, but this Bill will change absolutely nothing. Although in theory one name is pushed across the Prime Minister’s desk, when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister he effectively ended the veto. The last time the veto was exercised was by Tony Blair, shortly after the 1997 election when he objected to two candidates to be Bishop of Liverpool. John Major exercised his power on one occasion, I think. As hon. Members might expect, Mrs Thatcher viewed the process with immense enthusiasm and exercised her power rather more regularly. If we are to have a Bill, it has to achieve something, but frankly this power of the Prime Minister has fallen into abeyance. That did not occur in the past. As we have heard, in the 19th century Prime Ministers viewed this part of their job as having great importance—we have heard about Gladstone—but it was worse than that. It was not that they were simply trying to appoint the best people to the job; they viewed their role as entirely political. Those of us who love Trollope will know the novel “Barchester Towers”. The central plot is that the Government change and the candidate—I forget now whether he was a Whig or a Tory—is promptly prevented from taking up a bishopric. Viscount Palmerston packed the bishops’ Bench with low-church evangelicals. Given that there were 26 bishops in the House of Lords and therefore they had important political power, successive Prime Ministers deliberately packed the episcopal Bench with their appointments, which caused some upset. To heed the lessons of 19th century history—a fascinating subject—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Ah, I see the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) wishes to intervene.
That is a very interesting point of view from our Reform colleague. It is interesting to think that at some future date the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might appoint bishops, but we will see—it may or may not happen.
My wife is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. <em>[</em><em>Laughter</em><em>.</em><em>]</em> The Oxford movement of the 1830s was established precisely because faithful Anglicans grew disturbed that a secularised, reformed Parliament that included non-Anglicans held absolute power over the doctrine and leadership of the Church of England. Indeed, the House of Commons historically had an enormous interest in the matter—there were huge debates in the 1920s over the nature of the prayer book, and these Benches were packed with people who were interested. What a pity that these wonderful debates do not attract similar attention. In his many reflections on the relationship between Church and state, Cardinal Newman, who was central to the Oxford movement during his time as an Anglican earlier in life, feared that the state would reduce the Church to nothing more than a Department of Government.
We of course have to reflect changes in society. I have made the point that this measure will make no practical difference, so I wonder why it is really necessary. My other point is that it would be extremely unwise and would dig up past controversies if any Catholic Prime <span id="1178" class="column-number" data-column-number="1178"></span>Minister were to appoint an Anglican bishop. I hear what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) says, but I do not think it makes sense for somebody who is an atheist, like Keir Starmer, or a Hindu or a Catholic to appoint an Anglican bishop. I just cannot see the logic in that. Frankly, the practice has been discontinued, and it will not happen again.
By the way, I just want to make the point that I love the Anglican Church. I love the fact that we have an established Church. I think it is wonderful that in our country we proclaim the value of religion and that bishops sit in the House of Lords—although I have to say to most of them seem to spout rather woke rubbish most of the time.
I am very grateful to my good friend, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for that intervention. Actually, I see him on my fridge every night, from when we were <span id="1179" class="column-number" data-column-number="1179"></span>introduced to Benedict XVI—there we were in the row. Every time I open my fridge, I see the hon. Gentleman. He is an ornament of this House. I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to make one final point. I have asked whether it is actually wise for a Catholic, a Jew or a Hindu to appoint an Anglican bishop, or to have any say, but there is a wider debate about whether—although we believe in the established Church, and the Prime Minister in effect is not involved—there is any reason why the Prime Minister should be involved. I am afraid I have to tell the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that although I agree that in any other organisation, people rise through committees, it is all quite dull and there are safe options, the intrusion or lack of intrusion of the Prime Minister makes no difference. If we were going to have an entirely logical Bill, surely we would remove this power of the Prime Minister altogether—although it is never exercised, so the Bill is not going to achieve anything—and pass the role of final arbiter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire will not agree with me, but that would be entirely logical. I just do not see the logic in having a politician appoint the head of a Church nowadays, not that they ever do it. I apologise for my comments, but I hope that they give a different perspective on this Bill.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am glad that he is brave enough to take an intervention from a Member from Somerset. He is absolutely right to emphasise our commitment to scrapping the family farm and family business tax, but does he agree that the fertiliser tax that this Labour Government will introduce on 1 January, and which the Liberal Democrats are too timid to oppose, will hit farmers and increase the price of food in our country?