Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I will write to my hon. Friend if there is anything to add to what I am about to say, but as he will appreciate, the delay will have a practical impact because all those waiting for such a review will have to wait rather longer. The boundary review can only review proposals for change when a new authority is legally established, which has not yet happened.
Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker. On 7 September, Natural England submitted the legal orders for a 30.5% expansion of the Surrey Hills national landscape, which would transform biodiversity and nature protection in my area. The decision is now on the Secretary of State’s desk. When will she make that decision, and would she like to come to Surrey Hills to announce it and try out some of our fantastic local pubs?
I say to the Minister—I do not mean this personally—that I do not know what has happened to the Government. When they deploy British servicemen and women abroad, they should make a statement to the House, no matter what time of the day or night it is. In 1999, when Prime Minister Tony Blair deployed RAF aircraft to Montenegro, I remember the then Deputy Prime Minister coming to the Dispatch Box at about 9 pm. He knew his responsibilities. The Government have failed on this quite explicitly. Why are the Government misusing the word “defence” endlessly now, not wanting to talk about what they have to do? How do we defend against a ballistic missile once it is launched unless we attack the site that is launching it? This is nonsense. At the end of the day, we need to be honest with the British public. I am not against deployment to defend by offensive action, but surely that is more logical than pretending that personnel are there only to defend.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his indefatigable efforts on behalf of Barnstaple hospital; as he knows, although it is in his constituency, it also serves thousands of people in Torridge, which I have the honour to represent. Does he agree that the question the Minister needs to answer today is what the Government are going to do to ensure that isolated rural maternity services are resilient and can withstand the departure of a single consultant and prevent hundreds of mothers having to make a trek—in this case of 60 miles to Exeter, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well—to give birth. We need a policy that looks closely at how isolated rural maternity units can have built-in resilience, and trusts must have a duty to ensure it.
On the issue of stalwart supporters, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) has been a magnificent supporter. I have come along to these debates for several years, and what I am looking for is at least some prospect of a result, because we have done this year in, year out. I have affected constituents, and I still support them, but what we need from the Minister is at least some sign that we are not flogging a dead horse.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he agree that one of the fundamental <span id="471WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="471WH"></span>issues is who regulates the regulators? When the regulators failed in this case, ultimately the ombudsman tried to regulate the regulators, but the regulators were too stubborn to accept the ombudsman’s recommendations. So who is going to regulate the regulators?
Let us put the issue in context. The headline today is that we now have £3 trillion of national debt, which represents an increase of £1 trillion over the last six years. That debt has accumulated largely because of Treasury neglect and bad policy. The Treasury continues to talk about having low interest rates and an inflation target of 2%, but as we now know, it consistently allows inflation to be above 2%, with the most recent figure being 3.5%. That erodes the value of people’s pensions. Under successive Governments, the Treasury has behaved appallingly on the Equitable Life pensioners. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate and introducing it so well. He asked four pertinent questions—nice, easy, simple questions—and I hope that the Minister will answer each of them affirmatively in his response. My interest in this subject goes back many years, not only because my constituents were badly affected by the collapse of Equitable Life, but because I was a shadow Treasury Minister when the Treasury set up Lord Penrose’s inquiry into the scandal. That inquiry is another example of the Treasury delaying the process to try to kick the can down the road. Although the inquiry was initiated in 2001 and Lord Penrose reported to the relevant Treasury Minister at the time, Ruth Kelly, in December 2003, it was three or four months before the Treasury deigned to publish his report, and another four years after that before the publication of the ombudsman’s report. In setting up the inquiry, the Treasury deliberately prevented Penrose from finding issues of maladministration. The Treasury has been complicit in denying the victims of regulatory failure the compensation to which they should have been, and still are, entitled. Successive Governments are responsible for allowing this appalling saga to continue. Today, the Minister has the opportunity to change that and restore public confidence in the Government, the blob and the way in which such things are administered. Earlier I asked the question: who regulates the regulators? If a regulator is in place and that regulator falls down on his responsibilities, people expect that there will be some redress, but that does not seem to be accepted at the highest levels in Government, so I hope that that can change. This issue is not going to go away. That is a tribute to the persistence of parliamentary colleagues, the EMAG campaigners and our constituents, who are behind all this and who are saying, “What has happened to this extra money? Why can’t we have it paid out to us?” I said at the beginning that in the context of where we are with the national debt, this is very small beer, but it is not the money so much as the principle that is important, and I think that the principle is overridingly in favour of paying out what is due to these people, who were victims of Government maladministration.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the places of worship scheme is massively oversubscribed. If people can have VAT allowances against repairs to historic places of worship in Scotland, why can we not have them in England? Would that not be a much more direct way to help with the cost of repairs for historic churches, and will he ensure that such a provision is included in the Budget?
Waste crime and fly-tipping affect rural communities across Somerset. While I welcome the action that the Government are taking, does the Minister agree that the very substantial increases that we have seen in landfill tax enable rogue waste operators to undercut legitimate businesses? Does she accept that those substantial tax increases are fuelling waste crime, and will she join me in asking the Chancellor to cut those taxes?
The EU summit is to take place in just 28 days’ time, but the Farming Minister cannot answer key questions, not just from us but from our farming community. We still have no confirmation that the precision breeding Act—widely recognised as a huge success—will be 100% protected. We have no reassurance that our current freedom to innovate in gene editing and bovine TB vaccine development will be a red line, and we have no acknowledgment that the alignment with the EU on plant protection products could slash £810 million from farming incomes in the first year alone. What guarantees can the Farming Minister give our farmers right now that this Labour Government will not sell them out to the EU, just like they sold out our British fishermen last May when they previously negotiated with Brussels?
Skipton Road in Ilkley is being dug up yet again—I think for the fourth time this year—by Yorkshire Water. The biggest frustration for many of those who pass by is that there is seemingly no one ever undertaking the works when the traffic lights are on red. Can we have a debate in Government time that puts pressure on the highways departments at local authorities, such as Bradford council, to ensure that they sign off the works with a proper plan in place to cause as little disruption as possible to visitors, residents and local businesses whose trade is impacted, and that when utility companies do undertake the works, they do so around the clock?
Waste crime and fly-tipping are a blight on rural communities and, as the Secretary of State said, are increasingly linked to organised crime, so I commend Ministers for building on the work of the previous Government to increase penalties, tighten up restrictions on carriers and speed up the digital tracking of waste. Communities play their part, too, so will the Secretary of State join me in praising the work of the Wombles of Hambleton, whose volunteers do an excellent job of organising monthly litter picks, collecting hundreds of bags of rubbish and ensuring that North Yorkshire remains the most beautiful part of the country?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. We know that issues of injustice can take an awfully long time to reach a resolution in Parliament. It is important that people who have or feel that they have suffered an injustice at the hands of the state should have worthy champions who have the doggedness and stamina to continue to make their case, so I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing today’s debate. As has been noted, the issue goes back through this Labour Government, previous Conservative Governments, the coalition Government, the Brown Government, all the way back to Blair. Let us take a moment to think about the individuals who have already been waiting two decades and more for what they would see is a full resolution. As a Member of Parliament myself for periods of that time, I have had a sense that this matter is unfinished business. I was interested to listen to some of the comments. One issue that was raised, most notably by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), was on regulation and the role of regulators. On the different perspectives and remedies, I think I am closer to the one suggested by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made the point that regulators are being hollowed out. I would say that on average they have greater scope, greater funding and more people. There is an issue with their focus, but more importantly, the structures to hold regulators to account are insufficient. There is no annual review of each regulator that is performed as effectively as in other areas, so I would encourage the hon. Member to press that point to improve our system of regulating the regulators.
I do not want to go too far off the topic, because I am a bit of a nerd on regulating regulators. We can find time later to talk about that. It was an important point, as was the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I am glad he did not make a party political point, but it is a relevant point that the Labour party’s position in opposition was that the compensation was not sufficiently substantial. I want to make three broad points in the lead-up to questions on each to the Minister. The first point I want to establish is that making changes to the settlement is not set in stone; it is a matter of Government choice. <span id="484WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="484WH"></span>I want to give an example, which I raise solely for the purposes of talking about choice on pensions, not to talk about the decision that was made, because it is about choice. This is about mineworkers’ pensions. The incoming Labour Government made the choice in the case of the mineworkers’ pensions to move the surplus that had been accumulated in their fund to the mineworkers rather than back to the taxpayer—back to the Government. So it was a use of otherwise public funds that resulted in a boost to mineworkers’ pensions of about 30% to 32%. That was a choice. I just ask the Minister to consider this. It was a choice by the Government to boost pensions that were already being paid “in full”, and yet the Government seem to have no choice about people who had an 80% decline in their pensions. It might strike some as odd, with a different set of values, to treat one differently from another. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that, but the point that I am trying to make is that this is a matter of choice for the Government. My second point leads from a quote given by the Minister’s colleague, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said on this matter in September 2026: “There are no plans to reopen any decisions relating to the Payment Scheme or review”. That is an interesting phrase, because part of the conditions around those decisions are couched in different wordings of the phrase—that the settlement amount was determined in consideration of the “position of public finances”. That was stated way back in 2008 and also when the settlement was announced in 2011. It was alluded to again in 2016. Given that the Minister’s colleague said there are no plans to reopen any decisions, can the Minister confirm that it is still the case that considering the state of the public finances is a live factor that is encapsulated in that? What I mean by that question is, should there be a change in the public finances, would there then be scope for the Government to change their mind? That is an important point. I do not want to lay out a false hope, but the settlement amount was decided specifically in consideration of the public finances at the time. Times now may be better or worse, but they are certainly different. When we hear the Minister’s response or read the statement made by the Minister’s colleague saying that there are no plans to reopen any decisions, it is important that it is clear that they are still open to consideration if the public finances change. I want finally to return to what the hon. Member for Leeds North East said in his excellent speech about unallocated and unspent moneys. He said that if funds have been allocated but are not needed to meet the liabilities for which they were intended, then they should be used to compensate people who have still not received full redress. That really is a question about what those unspent funds would do. That partly encompasses the reserve and partly encompasses unallocated moneys. In the big scheme of things, it would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that it is the intention that those moneys in that envelope will be reallocated to policyholders, rather than being swept back into general taxpayer money. The last thing we want to come out of this debate is the Minister being unclear with Equitable Life policyholders, who in some cases have lost 80% of their pensions already, <span id="485WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="485WH"></span>or suggesting that if there are moneys left in the envelope, which was set at a particular level at a particular time because of the state of public finances, any surplus moneys will be squirrelled away and given to the Government again. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer those three questions.
The Minister is making the case that the position when that settlement was made about balance between taxpayers and policyholders was a matter of fault and responsibility. Does he not also recognise that a substantial part of that balance was to do with the state of the public finances? Will he confirm that that is still a live consideration in the Treasury that could in future lead to the settlement being reopened?
<Question HRSContentId="{33119A4B-4DBA-4F14-AFB0-05E1DC1152AD}">T2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{86A3C4B5-3C75-4C37-A4F8-111945000F79}"></QuestionText>Since the Iran war began, fishermen have seen their fuel costs roughly double, but the Minister has offered no tailored support, instead pointing to schemes that existed long before the conflict began, including rebated red diesel, marine voyages relief and the fishing and coastal growth fund. Meanwhile, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy and Germany have provided millions in fuel support to help fishermen catching food for their tables. When will the Government stop making excuses and back Britain’s fishing industry?</Question>
I have thoroughly enjoyed sitting through the debate this afternoon. Last year I listened to just some of the debate, as I could not be in for the whole time. It has been a really enjoyable afternoon, and some powerful points have been made. I will reflect on a few before I get to the main body of my speech. The first thing I want to talk about is the role of pioneers in the black community in Britain—none more significant than the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has been mentioned by so many Members, including, first, by the Minister. I was reminded of how important pioneers have been to the House of Commons. I am an MP for Plymouth, and in 1919 the first female MP to take her seat was Nancy Astor, who also represented Plymouth. It was 68 years before there was a female black MP. Putting it in that context highlights the work that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has done. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) spoke about Windrush and its role in our education system. Probably about 15 years there was an exhibition at the Southbank Centre; I was living in London at the time, and that was the first time that I really engaged with the story of Windrush. As part of the shadow education team, I know that talking about an entire British history is incredibly important. I studied history myself, and always looked particularly at the immigration history of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston mentioned the role of black footballers today. It would be remiss of me not to use that as a hook to mention that the first man to be selected to play for England was part of the Plymouth Argyle football team. Due to the racism he experienced in the 1920s, although he was selected for England he was not then allowed to play. But while playing for Plymouth Argyle—indeed, he captained the team—he scored 137 goals in 400 games. It is good to get Jack Leslie’s name on the record once again. I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) particularly inspiring, especially the story of resilience she told. Something similar was said to me early on in my career. Someone said that I never win people over when I speak publicly. Well, I hope that after my speech this afternoon, people—at least those in this Chamber—will disagree with that comment. Regardless of our race, resilience is something that most of us have had to build up to get here. I think that is incredibly important to mention. We also heard speeches from the hon. Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy)—with that gentle <span id="1353" class="column-number" data-column-number="1353"></span>mayoral competition that he mentioned—and for Brent East (Dawn Butler). All the points made by those Members were particularly important. The hon. Member for Brent East mentioned the role of stolen labour. That is not something that I will touch on directly in my speech, but it is part of the theme of commemoration that we need to embrace going forward. The people who fought for this country have not always been remembered for the role that they played. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) made a particularly powerful speech that prompted me to remember two midwives I know well in Plymouth who are of Caribbean heritage. They came over here and served the city of Plymouth for many decades, delivering many babies. It is a real privilege to be able to mention Liz and Yvonne today. Right across our country, we have stories of people who have served—people who came from far-flung places and made the United Kingdom their home. Finally, we heard from the hon. Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). It has been a pleasure to hear everyone’s contributions this afternoon. It is a privilege to respond to this interesting and inspiring debate on behalf of the official Opposition. We have heard many times this afternoon how the theme of Black History Month 2026 is “Honouring Our Communities” —sharing inspiring stories of black British life. I believe that there is no better way to do that than by reflecting on the lives of those men and women from the Commonwealth who served during the first and second world wars. Anyone who knows anything about me, right back to my maiden speech, will know that I had the privilege of working for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission before I was elected—indeed, I declare an interest as chair of the APPG for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and Commemoration. I hope Members will forgive me for using my time to talk about this, but I think it is an incredibly important story that we should be telling. As I am sure Members know, the allied forces were comprised of many nations, including, importantly, a significant number of what are now Commonwealth countries. The imperial forces, as they were known, saw personnel serving together from India, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. In addition, serving under those six flags were men and women from the West Indies and other African nations such as Rhodesia, Nigeria and Kenya. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme told us of his grandfather, who would have been one of those men who came from Rhodesia to serve—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Jamaica, sorry. But there was also family from Rhodesia—I was listening. More than 700,000 black Africans served in the first world war, with tens of thousands more coming from the Caribbean, and over half a million black and mixed-ethnicity individuals served in the second world war. Many of those individuals are commemorated in places like Plymouth’s naval memorial on Plymouth Hoe. There are tales of black and mixed-ethnicity servicemen and women in many theatres worldwide, from frontline first world war combat in east Africa and the middle east, to labour and support units working worldwide, to action <span id="1354" class="column-number" data-column-number="1354"></span>in Burma during the second world war, to the merchant navy and planes soaring in the skies with the Royal Air Force. It is the role of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to commemorate each man and woman who lost their life serving in the Commonwealth forces with no distinctions. Each casualty should be commemorated by name on a headstone or memorial. Each casualty should have a single point of commemoration. Headstones and memorials should be permanent, and, importantly, headstones should be uniform; it does not matter where somebody was from, we cannot tell by looking at the shape of the headstone—instead we have to go and read their story. There should be equality of treatment for war dead, irrespective of rank or religion. This means that right across the world, in 153 countries, war dead are commemorated. I will use my brief time this afternoon to highlight some of the black Britons who were included in the British forces who fought in the first and second world wars. There are many stories of the contributions of black Britons who served so faithfully during both world wars. The examples that I wish to share can be found on a new online portal hosted by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, where families and historians can share the stories of those recorded on war graves and memorials across the world. It is called the For Evermore project, and I encourage anybody who has a story or wants to advertise the project in their constituency to do so, because ultimately, by knowing more about the names, we have a much bigger picture of the cost involved in those two wars. I am grateful for those stories, and I have effectively lifted three of them from that portal to tell the House this afternoon. Second Lieutenant Walter Daniel John Tull was one of the British Army’s first black commissioned officers and one of England’s first black professional footballers. Born in 1888 in Folkestone, Walter was orphaned young and brought up in an orphanage in Bethnal Green. Before the war, he played for Tottenham Hotspur and later for Northampton Town, where he remains a club legend. Shortly after the outbreak of the first world war, Walter joined the Footballers’ Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment and fought in the battle of the Somme in 1916. He was a natural leader and in May 1917 was commissioned as an officer—a remarkable achievement, given the prejudices of the time. He was mentioned in dispatches for “gallantry and coolness” while leading his company of 26 men on a raiding party into enemy territory. He returned to France in 1918 and was killed in action on 25 March while leading his men into battle during the German spring offensive. He is commemorated on the Arras memorial to the missing. He was a true pioneer whose military service challenged the racial barriers of his age. Lance Corporal Horace Wilfred Miller from the Leicestershire Regiment was born in Hinckley, Leicester as the eldest of 10 children. His father hailed from St Helena, a British overseas territory off the coast of south-west Africa. Aged 19, Horace joined the Army in January 1913, enlisting with the Shepshed Company of the Fifth Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment. He was sent to France a year later and was known for being a keen musician and singer. Horace was killed on 10 September 1915 by a German sniper in the Ypres salient. Newspaper reports noted that “Miller was a fine man, greatly loved and admired by all his many pals”.<span id="1355" class="column-number" data-column-number="1355"></span> Finally, Victor Emmanuel Tucker was born on 22 December 1916 in Jamaica to parents Adrian and Lydia Tucker. Victor emigrated to England in the 1930s, and the Oxford-educated Jamaican qualified as a barrister. In 1940, he was living in Highgate, London with his wife Wilhelmina. He enlisted in the RAF in August 1940 and earned his pilot wings in early 1941. He was also promoted to sergeant at that point. His Spitfire was painted with a yellow island of Jamaica symbol on the nose, representing Victor’s homeland. Sadly, Victor would not survive the war. He was shot down by a Messerschmitt FW109S on a raid over Le Havre in France. The Spitfires were escorting Boston bombers to Le Havre and turned away before the bombing run. By order, they flew a left turn, to which the pilots had protested, as that enabled the Germans to attack from the sun. Victor was one of the RAF pilots shot down in that encounter. His body was never recovered and, as he has no known grave, he is commemorated on the Runnymede air services memorial in Surrey, England.
I hope that in all the stories I have shared, those men—women will have played a role, too, but in the early days it was often men—did what they did in spite of where they came from, their race and their background. We are incredibly grateful. That is why the Commonwealth War Graves Commission exists: to highlight their contribution. This afternoon I have sought to highlight not just Commonwealth people, but those who fought under the United Kingdom’s flag. They were black British men who served and tragically lost their lives. Many survived, and no doubt they are the family members of many Members in this House, but sadly, the men I have highlighted paid the ultimate price. These stories remind us that black history forms a part of our shared national story. These people came from different places, yet they shared the same values of duty, courage and service. They fought under the same flag, faced the same dangers and made the same ultimate sacrifice. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to state, during her tenure as Equalities Minister, that the achievements of black Britons “belong to us all, whatever our skin colour.” Black History Month is at its best when it reminds us of what unites us: a shared inheritance and a shared commitment to the country we all call home.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse—I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate to recognise the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow march. Her predecessor secured an Adjournment debate on the 75th anniversary; I am pleased that the hon. Lady went down the route of a Westminster Hall debate so that more colleagues had the opportunity to contribute. I note that some of the Members who contributed to the 75th anniversary debate are here today—I am, of course, referring to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I asked my team if they could find out whether he was there and they said, “He’s not that old!” I said, “I didn’t mean the march—I meant the debate.” He spoke with eloquence and integrity about the need to get young people back into work, which is something I recognise, as I have a 20-year-old and a 17-year-old. I confess to being very jealous that the new Prime Minister has had a hug with him and I have not.<span id="495WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="495WH"></span> I must ask the forgiveness of the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East, because Jarrow is over 300 miles from my Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency, so it is not a place that I am overly familiar with. However, as the former home of the Venerable Bede and the original home of one of the most important Bibles in the world, the Jarrow codex, the town is steeped in historical significance. In the early 19th century, a coal industry developed before the shipyard was established in 1852, becoming the first armour plate manufacturer in the world. Over the next 80 years, more than 1,000 ships were launched from Jarrow. Jarrow has had a lasting impact on the direction of our country, and the Jarrow marchers on that crusade undoubtedly played their part in that. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for bringing some of the families of the marchers to Downing Street this week alongside a copy of the original petition. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister for receiving them at No. 10. It will surprise nobody that I rarely speak ill of Stanley Baldwin, but failing to receive the original marchers was wrong, so I am pleased that the current Prime Minister received their families. That rights a historic wrong, and I would like to hope that any Prime Minister of any party would have done the same. While it was an inherently political event, what makes the Jarrow march stand out in my eyes is how it avoided being too partisan. All the local political parties—Labour, Conservatives and Liberal—gave their support to the march, as did the town’s churches and business community. On top of that, during the journey down to London, the Jarrow marchers received sustenance and hospitality from local branches of all the main political parties. The Jarrow march was triggered by industrial jobs being lost following the collapse of Palmer’s shipbuilding and iron company and the closure of the shipyard. That is a lesson for today. When we look at the news of the recent 4,000 job losses at Britain’s biggest car manufacturer, the risk of losing our industrial base could not be clearer. Once those industries are gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get them back. This has been a good-natured and well-intentioned debate, so I say the following out of respect. I want the current Government to consider the chemical, automotive, steel and many other factories and plants that are shutting down because of crippling energy policies, £66 billion in tax rises and burdensome red tape, such as the Employment Rights Act. As a result of that, there are 176,000 fewer jobs available now than when the Government took office. Our industries need to be supported and currently many feel they are not. Opposition Members do not want to see communities go through what Jarrow experienced in the 1930s, but I fear that we risk seeing our country deindustrialising before our eyes. As we remember the Jarrow march today, I hope the Minister can set out how the Government plan to create the conditions in which countless businesses across the country can manufacturer competitively in Britain. Cornelius Whalen, who at his 2003 was the last survivor of those who marched the full distance, described the march as “a waste of time”. I respectfully disagree. His family and the families of all the marchers should be proud. History now remembers the march very differently; <span id="496WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="496WH"></span>the Jarrow marchers rightly have an immovable place in our country’s history. Their legacy is far-reaching and will continue to inspire people for years to come. I am proud to be here on behalf of the Opposition to recognise their important contribution to our national story and to hold the Government to account on delivering for British industry and manufacturing.
I recently visited the Demelza hospice, which cares for children with life-limiting conditions and supports families across Bromley and elsewhere. It is simply extraordinary. Some 84% of its funding comes from charitable donations and it has been hit particularly hard, as have other hospices, by the Government’s changes to national insurance contributions, which will lead to the loss of specialist nursing provision. May we have a debate in Government time on the taxation and funding of hospices?
It is a genuine pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition to support the motion on the Order Paper and offer the warmest of tributes to Tom Goldsmith as he retires after 30 years of distinguished service to this House. There are many people who contribute to the work of Parliament, but there are relatively few whose work underpins everything that we do. I have seen that contribution by Tom in my role in the Government Whips Office, the Opposition Whips Office and now in my short tenure—hopefully longer—as joint Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. For Members of Parliament, the House of Commons is where we come to debate, scrutinise the Government and, ultimately, represent the people who sent us here. It is a place of passion and, occasionally, a little theatricality, but behind all of that stands an institution whose <span id="1311" class="column-number" data-column-number="1311"></span>authority depends on its procedures, traditions and the integrity of those who uphold them. Tom has devoted his professional life to ensuring that those foundations remain strong. Since joining the House service in 1996, when I was eight—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I know, I do not look it. Since 1996, Tom has served Parliament in a variety of important roles, including as Secretary to the House of Commons Commission, Head of the Committee Office, and Principal Clerk of the Table Office, before becoming Clerk of the House in 2023. He was also Clerk to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and if anyone can keep my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) in check, they are a very special man. That is a remarkable record of service and one that delivers the gratitude of Members on both sides of the Chamber. The office of Clerk of the House is not an ordinary job. It requires an extraordinary command of parliamentary procedure, a deep understanding of our constitution and, perhaps most importantly, the ability to provide clear, impartial advice when the political temperature in this place is rising—and we all know that the political temperature in this place can rise rather quickly. The Clerk must serve every Member equally, regardless of party, political persuasion or the strength of the argument being advanced at the Dispatch Box. That impartiality is fundamental to our democracy. No tribute to a Clerk of the House would be complete without recognising the qualities that can sometimes be taken for granted: patience, discretion, courtesy and the ability to offer advice with calm authority, even when the circumstances are anything but calm. Those qualities matter enormously in an institution where strong disagreements are not simply inevitable but essential to our democracy and the running of this House. Thirty years is a considerable period of service, and much has changed in that time, in Parliament, in the wider world and in our country. Through that period, the need for impartial, effective and trusted parliamentary administration has remained constant. Retirement from Parliament today will undoubtedly give Tom the opportunity to pursue new challenges and spend more time away from the demands of this place. His love of playing jazz piano has been mentioned. Like the Leader of the House, I am not somebody who would necessarily see him play—I much prefer musical theatre in the west end—but I look forward maybe to seeing him at my 40th birthday party in two years’ time. May I also suggest a career in professional poker? If he manages to keep that exact straight face as he does when I tell him my own interpretation of the Standing Orders, he really will go far. On a more serious note, I hope that Tom’s retirement brings him considerable happiness, good health and the freedom to enjoy those pursuits that a career of such commitment may not always have allowed him time to pursue. I hope that the whole House—I know that they will—will join me in wishing Tom every happiness in his retirement and thanking him for his outstanding service to the House of Commons. On behalf of all MPs and those wider House staff who serve in this unique and special community, thank you, Tom, and we wish you every best for the future.<span id="1312" class="column-number" data-column-number="1312"></span>
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
We have a musical accompaniment to the hon. Member’s intervention, which will no doubt be coming to an end because it should not be a speech. Unfortunately, that sounded like a Christmas-themed accompaniment, although it is far too early, for the record. Does the hon. Member wish to continue the intervention, or is the point made?
Marvellous. Joy Morrissey, are you ready, without any music?
As so many colleagues have mentioned the Mother of the House, it is only appropriate for me to say that I was able recently to step in for Mr Speaker at his Black History Month reception, where I was lucky enough to be joined by the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and the newest Member of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali). It was fantastic to be in the room with them both; the energy was fantastic. There was a huge backlash on social media. As the shadow Minister just said, we need to take a lesson from the Mother of the House, and ignore it and just keep going—which, no doubt, we will all do.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
As Members have already mentioned the late Jason Arday, I have taken some advice from the Clerk. The Jason Arday case is <span id="1331" class="column-number" data-column-number="1331"></span>sub judice, because the inquest has been opened and adjourned. Hon. Members should not refer to that specific case. If they want some more advice, we are here to provide it. I call Abena Oppong-Asare.
I have just noticed that the Serjeant at Arms has entered the Chamber, and I think we all want to notice him. I believe he is our first black Serjeant at Arms, appointed in October 2019—he is hating me saying this, so let us stare at him a little bit longer.
Order. Before the debate continues, it is etiquette when Members mention other Members in the Chamber to give them prior notice.
I call Dawn Butler, who I believe was the first black female Minister. Is that correct?
Can we have an urgent debate on the crisis at Basildon hospital? It is rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission, and it now appears that the CQC will prosecute the hospital early next year for the sad death of two patients from sepsis in 2022 and 2023. Just the other day, 20 ambulances were racked up in the car park outside the A&E department. To be clear, this is not the fault of the hard-pressed and increasingly demoralised staff; it is the fault of the wholly inadequate management of the hospital and, sadly, of the equally inadequate management of the trust of which it is part. We cannot let this situation deteriorate further. Can I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate, replied to by a Health Minister, so that we can address the problems at Basildon, and do our best to put them right for both the patients and the staff?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. We support clause 22, and I rise in support of new clause 61, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Both address the same question: what happens when someone claiming our protection is a danger to this country? Clause 22 says that a person who falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention is “not to be taken to be lawfully staying in the United Kingdom”. That covers two categories: someone whom there are reasonable grounds to regard as a danger to our national security and someone convicted of a particularly serious crime who is a danger to the community. Those are, by definition, the most serious cases our asylum system deals with. The public will understand why such a person should lose the rights that depend on lawful stay, such as the right to work and access to public funds, but they will ask a far simpler question: why are they still here? Clause 22 changes how we describe someone’s stay. It does not cancel their leave, make a deportation order or remove the human rights barriers to sending them home. In particular, article 3 of the European convention on human rights can still prevent removal, however grave the danger they pose, so the clause on its own does not give Ministers a clear route to removal. New clause 61 addresses that gap. For decisions to remove or require to leave anyone covered by proposed new section 37A of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, it would disapply section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and prevent a court or tribunal from treating that decision as unlawful because it is incompatible with the convention right. It would apply only where the refugee convention already permits return. The measure is targeted squarely at the dangerous individuals identified by clause 22. The Minister may say that the new clause would not change our obligations under the convention and that cases could still go to Strasbourg. That is true and is precisely why we believe this country should leave the ECHR.
If you believe that we are deporting everyone we should be deporting, and if you do not believe that the European convention on human rights has got in the way of us removing people, you start from a very different place from me. People I represent are very concerned about our immigration system. They are very concerned that the laws we are making in this place are not acting to control that immigration system. I think we start from very different perspectives.
The hon. Member makes a fair point. We have had lots of things to say about the past. It is that experience that has led us to the point where we believe that some of the human rights framework that is in place gets in the way of deportations. Clause 22 actually concedes that point. It says that these people should not be able to exercise some of those rights, but it does not remove them. New clause 61 is the step that actually solves that problem. This system is not working. I would be celebrating if we were a bit further forwards than we are. Actually, 7,042 people arrived from Eritrea in the year to March—how many went back? Two. There were 4,490 who arrived from Afghanistan—how many went back? One. And 4,389 arrived from Eritrea—how many went back? Zero. The system is not functioning. Progress is progress. We would welcome progress. The opportunity with this Bill is to make much further progress and remove the people who should be removed.
We welcome deportations of people with no right to be here, but when we start going back through the records to see who arrived and who left without us even knowing, we have the Home Office scratching numbers together to work out who has gone. <span id="317" class="column-number" data-column-number="317"></span>It is a positive that we can improve deportations, but in recent times, we have gone from the point where we said that somebody who arrives in this country illegally cannot claim citizenship—there was legislation in place—to a point where that has been unpicked by this Government. We sat through the debates on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 on that subject. This is an opportunity to improve things. We are determined to get among it. We are determined to improve it. Whatever the deportations are, they need to be significantly higher for my constituents to be happy. I will correct the record—7,042 arrivals from Eritrea, two were removed; 4,490 from Afghanistan, one was removed; 4,389 from Sudan, zero removed. That is not a satisfactory system. That is not working. This is the opportunity to improve that.
We are talking about people who pose a threat to our national security and are, categorically, a danger to our community. I think that the rights of the people in my community should trump the rights of people who pose a threat to our national security and are a danger to that community—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I will try to make a bit of progress, or we might be here for quite a while. New clause 61 would remove the domestic legal barrier that too often leaves Ministers unable to act. It is a concrete step that the Committee could take today. If the Government reject that approach, what is the answer? Where removal is lawful, how quickly will it happen? Where return home is barred, will Ministers seek agreements with safe third countries? While the person remains here, what measures will manage the risk, and who is accountable for making sure that they work? Government amendment 133 removes the transitional provision from clause 22. As introduced, the clause applies only to decisions made after it comes into force. The Minister’s explanatory statement says that amendment 135<span id="318" class="column-number" data-column-number="318"></span> “would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations,” which means that the transitional provision can be dealt with in those regulations rather than in the Bill. That means that the question of who this clause applies to and whether it reaches existing cases or only future decisions will be settled by Ministers, not by this Committee. I ask the Minister directly: will existing cases be reassessed, or will this apply only to future decisions? When will the regulations be published, and when will this clause actually take effect? Until Ministers commence clause 22, neither it nor new clause 61 can apply to a single person. We also need to know who will decide that someone falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention, what evidence will be required and how challenges will be handled. Those decisions must be robust, otherwise we risk years of litigation while the person concerned stays put. We will support clause 22 because it tightens the position of these individuals, but our support should not be mistaken for confidence that it solves the problem. Declaring someone dangerous is not the same as protecting the public from them. New clause 61 confronts the gap between the two, and we will press it to a Division at the appropriate point. If Ministers will not support it, they must explain what they will do instead to keep this country safe.
The Minister talked about Winston Churchill. Does she think that Winston Churchill would have desired legislation that allows people who are categorically a threat to our national security, or a danger to the community, to stay in this country?
The clause relates to people who are too dangerous to lawfully stay in the country. It is not giving us a perspective by which to remove those people. Those people are a danger to our community—you are saying that they are a danger to our community and a threat to our national security—yet we are not going far enough to remove them. It undermines the entire clause.
<em>rose</em><em>—</em>
This new clause sets out that we would remove people under the mechanism only where doing so complied with the refugee convention. It is there in black and white: we are complying with our obligations under the convention on refugees.