Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Businesses in my constituency have told me categorically that they are very concerned about this. Entrepreneurs who have taken all the risks to create jobs in their communities run the risk of the Fair Work Agency, which will be given these powers, coming into their businesses and riding roughshod over the work they are creating. How is that liberal and democratic?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I think you were very magnanimous about the inaccuracies in the documents before us. The real and growing burden on young people already struggling in a difficult labour market will only be added to by the draft regulations. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), now the Prime Minister, was elected leader of the Labour party on a pledge to scrap tuition fees altogether. The Education Secretary promised graduates that they would pay less under a Labour Government, offering “breathing space”, in her words, at the start of their working lives. Yet in office, Labour has done the exact opposite. Tuition fees being raised by 3.1% to £9,535 was labelled “economically and morally wrong” by university chiefs. Perhaps the Government will be grateful that the impact assessment makes no reference to the impact on young people. The Government then froze repayment thresholds, an effective tax on graduates that Martin Lewis himself called “not a moral thing to do”. This is not breathing space; it is an attack on students. To add insult to injury, universities did not even benefit, because every penny of those higher fees was wiped out by Labour’s job tax. Now, having already hammered students and graduates, the Government return to do it again, raising maximum tuition fees further to £9,790 next year and £10,050 a year later. That is after the Conservatives froze university tuition fees for eight years. The reality of plan 2 student loans means that millions of graduates’ debt is growing faster than they will ever be able to repay. I see that in my own team—they are looking at fees that go up and up, and at £72,000 or £80,000 of debt. That is something that we must fix. We must reflect on how we got there and ensure that we learn from mistakes and correct them.
Forgive me, but I did not hear a question in that intervention. It is basic courtesy in the House to ask a question in an intervention, but I congratulate the hon. Member on getting some points with the Whips there. If he had listened to my wording, I said that we should reflect and learn from how we got here. I was acknowledging that we must learn when we make mistakes—that is exactly what I just said. He takes me on to my next point, so I thank him for recognising that I said that we must learn from mistakes, but as there was no question, I cannot answer one. The average plan 2 graduate must now earn £66,000 a year just to begin paying down their balance. Raising the fee cap makes that problem worse, not better. Youth unemployment stands at 16.1%, which is the highest in more than a decade, and higher than the European average; it is the first time our country has been in that place since records began. Graduate recruitment is at a record low, yet the Government’s answer is to load more debt on to young people’s shoulders. That is a betrayal of the young generation. Young people deserve better than this, which is why the Conservatives are proposing a genuine new deal for young people. We will abolish real interest rates on plan 2 loans so that balances can never spiral beyond inflation again. We will guarantee fully funded apprenticeship places for 18 to 21-year-olds, and introduce a first job bonus to get young people into work and saving for their futures. Martin Lewis said that the Government’s approach is “not a moral thing to do” but, in contrast, he has welcomed our plan, and said that it is the right thing to do. Higher fees without better outcomes is not a higher education policy. It is yet another broken policy from Labour, who are simply burdening young people with more and more debt.
Will the Minister give way?
I do not want the Minister to unnecessarily age me in this debate, so I want to put on record that, unfortunately, I cannot give him that data on my voting record because I was just finishing university then and was still enjoying the joys of life.
The Minister has opened the box on the topic of funding for universities by mentioning how central that funding is. One of my gravest concerns is the amount of money that is coming from the Chinese Communist party into our universities. Does the Minister believe that by taking this action today, the Government will be able to focus on cracking down on those universities that seem to think there is no problem with taking vast sums from China, which then threatens MPs by saying that it will not take the children of sanctioned MPs at its universities or that it will withdraw all funding from universities if the Dalai Lama speaks at them or there are efforts by Hongkongers or others? Given that the Government are taking action to make sure that universities have a more valid footing, will he make sure that those funding streams are cracked down on?
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Drawing on my hon. Friend’s point, we have also heard much argument that somehow reducing down to one judge would be a fairer and less biased system. As a woman, I do not feel that one person—we have to be honest with ourselves, they will likely be a man—who does not share my life experiences is more likely to be less biased than a jury of my peers. If the Government really want to tackle this issue, they need simply to turn to page 67 of their own manifesto, where they promise fast-track rape cases with specialist courts for every Crown court location. Surely that would be a better policy. It would make sure that women, when they give evidence, are hearing from a jury of their peers, who are more likely together to understand life experiences than one individual.
I warmly welcome the Minister to her place. I should declare that I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of three, so I cannot begin to imagine the pain that Mr and Mrs Story, and other affected families who are in the Public Gallery or watching this debate online, have felt—particularly my constituent Levi, who lost her beloved son Eli at the age of two after five misdiagnoses of viruses and infection. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that future guidance will be drafted to emphasise to clinicians that infections and viruses can be not only a symptom, but sometimes a trigger of type 1 diabetes, so that clinicians will have, we hope, the understanding to avoid the tragic losses that we have heard about today?
Will the decisions that the Chancellor is making about the strategic reserve being used for defence include consideration about the availability of funding for the Royal Navy to prepare warships to go to sea? There has been rumour over the past few days that one reason why one of His Majesty’s ships is not ready is that the contractor is still working 9 to 5. Will she be able to fund this properly, so that all ships are available as quickly as possible?
I visited the UK-US Bahrain base at the end of last year, and during the Venezuela statement on 5 January this year I said that we were exposed in Bahrain with the naval assets. The Secretary of State has rightly said that the UK presence over there has been ramped up since January. If last Tuesday was the first time that the Chief of the Defence Staff saw a request for naval assets to go to that region, what has gone wrong during that time and is it a strategic failure that it has taken that long for a request for those assets to be put on that desk?
There are thousands of Ukrainians in this country—most of them women and children—who are effectively stateless. They did not come here as asylum seekers; they came as refugees. They do not know whether they are coming or going. They cannot return to their country, and there is no prospect of them being able to in the short or medium term. They need to be able to determine accommodation, education and employment, so what will the Government do to create some sort of proper settled status for Ukrainian refugees?
May I first say that I do not know of anybody on the Conservative Benches who would not wish to associate themselves with the Secretary of State’s praise for the courage and determination of our armed services, both worldwide and particularly in Cyprus? I have to declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker; as you know, I am an honorary citizen of Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus has maintained a principled neutrality that has served British nationals and others well over many years. Akrotiri is based almost exactly between Paphos and Larnaca—it is a very difficult situation for the Secretary of State to square. Will he tell the House what steps will be taken to protect the many British nationals resident in Cyprus and the many other British visitors who have hitherto gone to the island for their holidays?
As the Chancellor has repeatedly said, at the root of the current economic crisis lies the closure of the strait of Hormuz. What conversations have the Government had with the Trump Administration, both about insurance and, more importantly, about deploying UK military assets to secure the reopening of the strait? Does she agree that a more robust approach might reassure our friends and allies in the Gulf who invest so much in the United Kingdom? Our presence there has been notable by its absence.
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement and add the Opposition’s firm support for our armed forces. As the Chancellor has made clear, these are very serious and concerning times, and developments in the middle east are already having profound consequences for our economy. Oil prices have surged above $100 a barrel for the first time since the 2022 energy crisis. That alone is enough to have huge knock-on effects for households and businesses: families filling up their car will already have noticed petrol prices increasing, and fixed-price energy tariffs have either been increased or pulled from the market. We are already seeing British households worse off as a result of this conflict. I am grateful to the Chancellor for updating the House on her meetings with other G7 Finance Ministers, and I welcome her commitment to supporting action to ease pressure on global supply by using strategic oil reserves. That, however, will go only so far. As the Chancellor has said, the longer this conflict continues, the more likely it is that we will see a sustained period of higher prices. That, in turn, will have implications for interest rates and our cost of borrowing. The longer that lasts, the more likely it is that higher inflationary expectations will become anchored. If that happens, monetary policy will need to adjust accordingly, which may mean higher mortgages for homeowners who have only just begun to see some relief. Gilt markets have already been responding to these events, which could mean that the forecasts we were given just last week from the Office for Budget Responsibility end up looking very different. We must continue to monitor developments closely. Where the Opposition clearly differ from the right hon. Lady is in her approach to the economy in the run-up to this crisis, as her gross mismanagement has left us far more vulnerable than would otherwise have been the case. She refers to inflation, which was bang on target when we left office; thanks to her choices, though, it rose back up to almost 4% last year—the highest in the G7—and remains elevated, which is far from ideal given the threat of a significant further spike in energy prices. Extraordinarily, the Chancellor has just now reconfirmed that the Government will press ahead with a rise in fuel duty later this year. Borrowing is running higher than was forecast when the Government took office—we are spending well over £100 billion a year on debt interest alone. This leaves us far more vulnerable to rising borrowing costs. The Government are also continuing to impose ruinously high taxes on our oil and gas sector and choosing to rely on imports instead of maximising our own domestic energy supply. That is proving to be an incredibly short-sighted approach. However, as the right hon. Lady has just told us, there will be no change in direction. That is the wrong choice. More broadly, of course, business confidence has hit record lows, and unemployment has risen back to pandemic levels. Our economy is weaker as a direct result of this Chancellor. Last week, at the spring statement, the right hon. Lady had an opportunity to change course; instead, we got no action at all, just breathtaking self-congratulation and denial. She had a vital opportunity to come to the House with a plan to get the economy growing, but she did not do so—not least because this weak Government have caved in to their own Back Benchers, who prefer higher welfare spending to fixing our economy. Today, let me reiterate our offer to support the Government if—even at this late stage, and particularly given the gravity of the current global outlook—they do the right thing by showing some backbone and coming forward with a proper plan to cut welfare spending and strengthen our economy so that we can properly support hard-working families through this difficult time. That is the very least that the British people deserve. Finally, let me ask the right hon. Lady the following questions. Will she urgently reconsider her decision to implement the first increase in fuel duty in 15 years? Likewise, will she urgently reconsider her decision to continue with the crippling taxes being imposed on North sea oil and gas producers? On the Fingleton review on nuclear, can she clarify whether the Government are accepting all the recommendations, as Ministers previously committed to accepting? Will the right hon. Lady give further details on what additional economic action is under consideration internationally if the conflict continues? What measures are the Government considering to support households in the event of a sustained period of higher prices, and what action is being considered as part of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury’s work to support those reliant on heating oil? Are the Government tracking the Iranian regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems are not facilitating funds that are being used to support repression? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that there is sufficient resource available in the special reserve so that our brave servicemen and women have the support that they deserve?
There have often been occasions on which somebody has leaked in advance the contents of a statement that they are going to make to the House of Commons, or part of its contents, but this is the first time I have seen a total revelation in the press of something that the Government had no intention of making a statement about to the House of Commons. Why is that, and what will these measures do to deter people from breaking into this country illegally, with it then being impossible to deport them?
I am not particularly keen on the tone of these exchanges, so may I make a positive suggestion to the Secretary of State? We have heard that Ukraine has offered to assist the United States with its specialised version of anti-Iranian drone technology. These weapons for bringing down Iranian drones are much cheaper than the drones themselves, whereas the weapons that we and the Americans generally use are much more expensive. Given the difficult relationship between Zelensky and Trump, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a role here for Britain, with its high standing in Ukraine, to see if we can make a start by acquiring from Ukraine some of these weapons, which we can use in the defence of our own bases and which may then pave the way for a deal between Trump and Zelensky for the wider benefit of the whole theatre?
Like a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, I come from an immigrant family and grew up in a household where a foreign language was primarily spoken by my grandparents, my father was bilingual and I was monolingual with the language of the country that my family had come into. The key to it all working is a willingness to integrate. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there are measures in this overall plan, which seems to have much to commend it, that are designed to prevent separatism and ghettoisation in society? Where that exists, a community becomes impossible to navigate in the way that we would all want it to be navigated.
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Would my right hon. Friend allow me?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making the case for banning mobile phones in schools and for restricting access to social media. We do not need more discussion or consultation, and we do not need more research, because research already shows the harm that those things are doing. By delaying and prevaricating, we are robbing children of the chance of a healthy life, so let us just move on and do what so obviously needs to be done.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
When I was doing the Chancellor’s job, the Treasury rule of thumb was that a 20% increase in energy prices meant 1% more on inflation and 0.5% less on growth. The truth is that it is much too early to know whether the Chancellor will have to find £78 billion to help households with energy bills, as I had to do in 2022, but we do know that the world is much more dangerous and that there are big problems in our defence budget. I welcome the fact that the Government are now committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, but nearly two years on from when the previous Government made the same commitment, it is clear that that is not enough. Will she unblock the arguments between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence and outline a timetable whereby defence spending increases to 3% of GDP and we are able to defend our interests in the middle east and our allies in Europe, as the whole House would wish?
Nobody supports the armed forces more than I do. The Secretary of State has my full support and respect, as he knows, but I want to ask a simple question. There seems to be some confusion among Government Back Benchers, who think the Government have somehow kept them out of this war. The Government have not kept Britain out of the war: our bases and allies are in the firing line. The Chancellor spoke about the strait of Hormuz and the necessity of taking action where applicable. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will—and, under international law, can—take action against Iranian threats to oil tankers and other facilities in the strait of Hormuz?
I declare a similar interest to that of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I read this weekend that if we grapple with the increase in pensions and benefits, we might be able to afford 15 new frigates. It is easy for Opposition Members to attack in-work benefits; it is more difficult to question the state pension. Has the Minister seen the paper from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that says we should consider moving to a smoothed earnings link for state pensions, which would ensure that they never fall in real terms but, in the long term, always rise with earnings? He will not give me an answer now, but perhaps he can write to me about how we are going to buttress the long-term sustainability of the state pension.
May I quote approvingly the remarks of my constituency neighbour and Labour MP, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White)? She said that if Labour is to win its battle against Reform, it has to do much more on illegal boats. I am sorry that she is not here, but I have warned her that I was going to ask this question. Specifically, she makes the good point that people should only be allowed to claim asylum abroad. If that were the case, surely there is an argument that if people arrived here illegally, they would not be able to claim asylum and would not be covered by the convention, and they could be detained and deported.
When we are in the middle of a war, I am not sure that it achieves much to be overtly party political. The past is where we were; we are now in the present. Just to be helpful, I agree with the Chancellor on de-escalation and on defending our interests, not pursuing regime change, but the fact is that we have the highest energy costs in Europe. We are now in a crisis and potentially a war economy. I saw the Energy Secretary sitting next to her earlier. Whatever the good intentions on net zero, will she listen to the shadow Chancellor on North sea oil, because we are in this crisis now and have to meet it with every tool in the toolbox?
18. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment.
The Government loaded costs on to employers while the benefits bill let rip. What on earth did they think would happen?
Where will we send an illegal entrant with no right to remain but whose country of origin is unsafe?
Order. I welcome members of the public to the Gallery. I know that this is an emotional subject that people care deeply about; I hope that they find today’s debate informative. I remind hon. Members to speak through the Chair. If they wish to speak, they should bob to catch my eye.
Order. I will now set a two-minute limit, because I will be calling the Front-Bench speakers at 7 pm and I am keen to get all colleagues in.
Order.
Order.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister.
Defence industry supply chains are desperately in need of the defence investment plan. The Chancellor talks about the money being invested, but why is the Treasury not allowing the DIP to go forward? It is starting to become critical, and we need that infrastructure. The Secretary of State is desperate for that infrastructure. We need to know when it is coming forward. They are the Government’s self-imposed deadlines, nobody else’s.
The Minister and the Government are to be commended for trying to wrestle with this issue, and where there can be cross-party consensus, let us build on and foster it. Lots of groups of people who come to this country generate complaints, but one group that does not are those who come from New Zealand and Australia to help our sheep farmers at shearing time. May I urge the Minister to rethink the measure in this regard, as not a single rural Member of Parliament is calling for it? Those people should be allowed in. This is an animal welfare issue, and it is important for our food security and agricultural sector.
As heating oil and petrol prices go up in rural North Dorset, my constituents are hearing the Chancellor echo one of her predecessors in effectively saying, “Crisis? What crisis?” She needs to actively get a grip on this issue. Motorists in rural areas use their cars because they have to. The vast majority of my constituents are off grid and have no alternative to keep warm other than using heating oil. This is a crisis in costs taking place today that meetings with and letters to the CMA will not help or address. She has mentioned that this meeting has been organised on Wednesday and that invitations have gone out for it. [Interruption.] We do not need the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) gesticulating like some—
The Minister will know that this is the second Adjournment debate on this issue that he has had to respond to in these last several months. Given the fact that most practitioners want to see regulation and the public want to see regulation, does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government seem to be very slow on this issue—unless the Minister is going to give us some earth-shattering news this evening? This is too vital and important a set of circumstances just to leave to an unregulated marketplace in continuation; it needs regulation and it needs it quickly.