5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Without wishing to be distracted from the motion at play, I have seen Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland of all parties in successive Governments try hard to ensure that there is maximum disclosure for the people of Northern Ireland, while ensuring that national security is not compromised. I am afraid that I see things through a slightly different prism from the hon. Lady.
I will give way one more time and then I intend to make some progress.
I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with us that the ISC should be used in this context. I am glad that there is agreement between her and me that those on the Government Front Bench should use the ISC to act in this way. I hope that other Labour Members will take the same view as that extremely experienced parliamentarian.
My right hon. and learned Friend speaks from a position of experience. He is entirely right; the House is fortunate to have the ISC and that is one of the functions that it can perform. The Government can have reassurance on national security and the House can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it that the Government might find embarrassing. In his remarks, will the Paymaster General, who I know will have had nothing to do with this and who I know is a man of integrity, think seriously about the options of gisting and the role that the ISC can play in that and make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework? It is important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the Government provide us with. Before I hand over to other Members, let me move briefly on to the conduct of Lord Mandelson while he was our ambassador in Washington, which I think is relevant to our debate because it again exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment in appointing him. There is obviously strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was Secretary of State under the last Labour Government, but equally big questions are now outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington—as I said, this is relevant now. On 27 February 2025, the Prime Minister, while in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister’s register of visits; it only came to light later. Palantir, we should remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this Government a £240 million deal. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson’s conduct, will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract, and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, and that the Government will go through all communications and messages that Mandelson sent out while he was ambassador, some of which we must assume, were sent to old business contacts, a potential few business contacts, and so on? The Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by that. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made, because the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew—but the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this Humble Address, and only if the Government treat it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that we do not find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the Government will be able to fix them. I think it also likely that we will see reports that consistently raised concerns which were swept away. It will then be the duty of the Government to disclose who swept them away, and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. The Humble Address is obviously about Lord Mandelson’s appointment. However, the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) was about two contracts, at least one of which, by direct award, went to a business that was a client of Global Counsel. The Prime Minister met that company while in Washington and it did not appear on his register of interests. Will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will look into the process that led to that direct award?
The Government’s failure to resolve the uncertainty around AI data mining and copyright is undermining the UK’s economic competitiveness. Will the Secretary of State accept that that failure is driving jobs in both AI and the creative industries abroad?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have tried my best to be patient, as he indicated I should be, but surely he agrees that there is only one way for him to pay for these increases, which is taxes?
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is claiming that less is taken off them. Student loans, which could have received this £3 billion that this change will cost, are effectively taxing young people at 70% or 71%. Does he not think that that tax rate is high enough?
I have heard so many well motivated and moving stories about human misery, and the truth is those are the stories of our country. Those are the stories of a country that has tried for over 100 years to introduce a social welfare service to look after the poorest in our community and to do the best for them, and, in various different ways, all of us—and I do mean all of us—seek to do that. We may have different expressions and different understandings of quite how that works, but we do all try to look after those who are most vulnerable in our society. But I think the division here comes in a very fundamental way, and it comes in the questions that one has to ask oneself when one looks at the way in which this economy, this society and this community grow. When I say economy, I mean not just the bald rows of figures that accountants and bankers add up, but the way in which the Greeks meant it: the way a home works together, the way people interact to bring about a community and to bring about a whole. How does that work? How do we get growth? How do we get investment and reward at the right point so that we actually see the progress that society can bring? We have seen societies, time and time again, doing the well-meaning thing, and ending up costing everyone. We can read the constitutions and the promises of Governments and nations over the last century and see the human misery they led to—not because they were evil, but because those intentions were not aligned with the reality of a human economy. We have seen it time and time again. Sadly, although we are now having a debate about the two-child benefit cap and about £3 billion, we are really having a debate about what it means to grow an economy. Although the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), made a joke out of it, the reality is that we are seeing young people paying something like 70% tax—and some are therefore making the choice to go to Dubai, to Portugal, to the United States or to Australia. That connection between young and old people is being broken, with families left in need of not only the economic connection but of the human connection between them.
I will not. This debate is not just about cash; it is fundamentally about people. There has been an attempt again to pretend that the only interaction between people is that which is metricked, divined and organised by the state, and that simply is not true. It simply is not true to say that, unless the state provides it, it does not count. Yet, again and again, we hear the same thing. Yes, I know that the Conservative Government left taxes high, but many people seem to have forgotten that covid seemed to increase the debt enormously, and that when some of us tried to vote against various lockdowns, we were accused of murdering various groups, depending on whoever the then Leader of the Opposition seemed to be siding with.
I have said I will not give way. It is true that what we are seeing in the UK today is a legacy: of poor decisions on covid that some of us condemned at the time; of promises made in the last year or two; and of debts to those who challenged leadership in the last six to 12 months. We are now seeing, falling on those who are working, a level of burden that is growing and growing, and people are voting with their feet, either by not working or by leaving. I am afraid that what we are seeing here is a false choice. We are seeing a Government making promises that will never be able to be cashed. We are seeing a Government adding to a debt, not of £2 trillion—the one that they state—but of £12 trillion or £13 trillion, depending on how we count pension liabilities, private finance initiatives and many of the state’s other debts. The reality is that this country is broke, and to a degree that nobody in this House seems to appreciate—certainly nobody on the Government Benches. We simply do not have the understanding here, among the noble and well-meaning socialists, that the reality is that they are racking up debts for their children that will mean that this state will be impoverished, we will be left weaker and the whole country will be poorer.
I have recently completed a “shop local” survey of almost 4,500 residents, and they said that a cleaner high street would improve community pride and help to reduce crime. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a good initial approach, although it does not replace police on the beat?
I am enjoying listening to Members who say they have met constituents who have suffered hard times. I grew up in hard times, on welfare, through the death of a parent, watching my mum go without food to feed us. There is no possible way, given that the cuts to benefits have been pulled, that the country can afford this. We will have no defence of the realm. South Shropshire residents will start going without. There is no feasible way to fund this measure, whichever way Labour Members look at it. Does my hon. Friend agree with me?
The hon. Member is making an impassioned speech. If the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that this will be the biggest change made in a Parliament —a full parliamentary term—why are the Government doing it now after refusing to do it 18 months ago?
Will the hon. Member say what statistic backs up the statement that a third of the children in the UK were living in poverty?
Within hours of the Hamas massacres, protesters and marchers were organising against Israel. Yet here we are, weeks later, when the Iranian regime is murdering and torturing its citizens by the tens of thousands—still no marches, still no protests. What does the Minister think that says about the prejudices of such activists?
The right hon. Gentleman has provoked me into responding. I served in the previous Conservative Government, and I was involved in all those decisions. There was a clear principle behind them: will people take responsibility for their own actions? There are thousands—millions—of people who choose not to have more children because they want to take responsibility for their lives, rather than the state doing so. With this change, the Government are saying to those people, “Not only will the state take responsibility, but you as the individual will have to pay for it through higher taxes.” That is the principle at stake here, and the Government are reversing a clear principled position taken by the last Government.
Will the Minister clarify what the Northern Ireland Office’s submission in the write-round said about the impact of the measure on Northern Ireland, or give a sense of those discussions? Baroness Foster runs Intertrade UK, a committee that was designed during the Windsor framework negotiations to look at the very issue of trade. Has he had conversations with Baroness Foster? Having listened to Northern Ireland colleagues, will he look again at how this will impact the Union? On top of the Windsor framework—which I would argue was the best deal we could get—this measure is an additional burden.
Will the Minister please get on with doing that? The fact is that the independent reviewer of terrorism has signalled a way in which something analogous to proscription can be done to the IRGC, even though it is a state body. Does the Minister accept that there is an analogy between the IRGC and the Gestapo and Hitler’s SS, both of which were designated as criminal organisations by the Nuremberg tribunal? Would he be as slow to act if we were operating in that context? For goodness’ sake, get on with it and implement the findings and recommendations of Jonathan Hall.
I entirely agree with what the Justice Secretary says about the dangers of deception. It is also concerning to note that people are now trying to use a mental health argument to get out of separation centres, given that anyone who holds a fanatical Islamist, Nazi or revolutionary view from some other doctrine has, by definition, a mental health question mark over their personality. I appreciate that he may have to write to me afterwards, but can he indicate what proportion of people imprisoned for terrorist offences related to Islamism are in separation centres, and what proportion are in the rest of the prison estate? What is known about the number of other people who have been radicalised by Islamist extremist prisoners in those parts of the prison estate that are not separated out like the units with which he is primarily concerned today?
Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were told by the Iranian ambassador that 80% of the deaths were the responsibility of ISIS-style terrorists. Will the Minister continue to give every support to journalists, human rights activists, and all those who are seeking to uncover the evidence to demonstrate who in the Iranian regime is truly responsible for this and potentially to refer them to the International Criminal Court for prosecution?
That intervention tested my legendary patience to its very limits, so just bear that in mind in the future.
Order. I remind Members that they need to bob, although I can see that they know that already.
If Members speak for about six minutes each, everyone will get in. I am going to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.30 pm, so Members should work on that basis.
We will now hear brief contributions from a couple of Back Benchers who have gone through the proper process and notified both the mover of the motion and the Minister.
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob, but I can see that four Members already know that.
I am renowned for my generosity in the Chair and I am extremely open minded about how debates are conducted, but it is not really appropriate to come in two thirds of the way through and intervene when everyone else took the trouble to get here at the beginning. We are all busy, after all.
The hon. Gentleman, the Minister and others might like to know that there is some evidence to suggest that bees can count. I speak as a beekeeper. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report 2024.
3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.
As you know, Mr Speaker, the age-old jury system connects the public to the exercise of law, and is therefore at the heart of popular consent for criminal justice. In abandoning this link, are the Government careless of the accountability that it brings, or are they driven wholly by thoughtless expediency? Are Ministers careless or thoughtless?
I agree with everything the Justice Secretary says about making these places safer, but I have been reading the report from the prisons inspectorate, which said that although separation centres were generally safe, there was not enough skilled focus on deradicalisation. This is a highly complex area. Although I do not want to sound like a weak and washy liberal, we believe that prisons are about not just punishment but redemption. The Secretary of State may not be able to reply now, but could he write to me about what skilled psychological pressures we are using on these people to try to change their behaviour. There are many good Muslims who totally abhor violence whom we could perhaps involve in the process. Maybe I am being naive, but I think it is a question that needs to be asked.
It appears that those 300,000 were in poverty a year ago, but the Secretary of State has allowed that to persist till now. What has changed? It is not the fiscal situation, and it is not any room in the benefits budget. This is the Labour equivalent of Project Save Big Dog, is it not?
We now hear shouts of “cruelty” and “the rape clause”, but I see only one of the seven who were suspended sitting on the Labour Benches. The rest of them kept their heads down and voted to perpetuate what they now call cruelty and the rape clause. How do they sleep at night?
Next year, the Government will spend more money on education in prisons, yet they will actually commission 25% less education by way of quantity of service. Why are they doing such a poor job of commissioning education on behalf of the taxpayer?
Twelve months ago, not only did the Government support the two-child cap, but they were busy suspending Labour Back Benchers who voted against it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what it was about the Prime Minister’s weak position that caused him to change his mind?
The benefits system is a safety net designed to support people in hardship, but a fair system must balance that with the needs of those who pay for it. Benefits are paid by the taxpayers of today or, if the money is borrowed, as is so often the case with this Government, by the taxpayers of tomorrow. Every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on the taxpayer, and that cost is growing unsustainably. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is set to hit £100 billion a year by the end of the decade. It is a mark of Labour’s irresponsibility that it presents a Bill today to increase welfare spending further. I believe in personal responsibility. Not only should our country live within its means, but every individual and family should do so too. Many thousands of couples every year think about whether to have children. They make that choice based on a number of factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Those in receipt of benefits should face the same choices as those in work. That is why the Conservatives introduced the two-child benefit cap, and it is why I believe it should be retained. Under the pre-2017 system, there was a fundamental element of unfairness. A family in receipt of benefits saw them increase automatically every time they had another child. That was not true of a family not in receipt of benefits. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work? I understand why Labour Members are in favour of more welfare spending. They stopped representing working people a long time ago, and they now want to create a society where more than half the population is dependent on the state to ensure their re-election. Why has the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), supported scrapping the two-child cap until so very recently? Voters in my constituency, some even sympathetic to his cause, have been horrified. I think the answer is that he is chasing votes in the north of England, hoping to win support from former Labour voters. That instinct for higher spending shows that Reform UK is wholly unserious about governing our country. Britain needs a Government determined to deliver the changes we need: controlling public expenditure and reducing borrowing, leading to lower taxes and a stronger economy.
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, he would know that I was describing the tactics of the hon. Member for Clacton. That, I believe, is what motivates his policy on this matter. The Government seem to be completely powerless to do anything to reverse the spiralling costs of the welfare state. The Prime Minister did, of course, try to produce a package of modest reforms last year. He set out to save £4.5 billion, but was forced into a humiliating U-turn and ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. He now says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”. Does anyone believe him? There is not a thought for the taxpayer, and not a thought about the extra debt that the Government are incurring and the interest that will have to be paid on it. Let me remind Labour Members that before the election, they said repeatedly that they would “not increase taxes on working people”. That was accompanied by a manifesto pledge that they would increase spending by £9.5 billion, but in the 18 months since they were elected, the Government have actually increased spending by £100 billion—10 times more than they promised. They have increased taxes by £66 billion, and borrowing by an extra £40 billion. This is what the Labour Government do best: spending other people’s money. It is in their DNA. They do not care about getting better value for the taxpayer; their only thought is about how to spend and borrow more, as if that were a sign of caring. I am proud to have a leader with the backbone to tell the truth to the British people. We need to reduce the size of the state so that it does less but does it better. We will reward people who do the right thing—who work hard, who save, who invest, who create jobs, and who build a more prosperous country for all of us.
I welcome the sale of Government land around HMP Wealstun. Were neighbouring residents given advance notice of the auction details so that they could express an interest?
China has no regard for human rights whatsoever, and it is known to be trading with Iran, which is enabling Iran to slaughter its own citizens. What assessment is the Foreign Office making of the details of that trade, and what action is it taking?
My hon. Friend’s comments provoke the question, is it a concern that the lack of flexibility for the Secretary of State will mean that there is no space for private sector companies in this role in the future? Ultimately, given the measures set out in the Bill, and that the opportunity to give access to other private businesses is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, it is potentially foreseeable that there could be no private involvement in the future, which would be a problem.