Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I thank the hon. Member for bringing the point of order to my attention. These will, of course, be highly concerning allegations for all in the parliamentary community. The Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service can advise and assist on the range of support available for anyone affected by these reports, and there are established mechanisms for anyone with concerns who wishes to come forward. Any criminal allegations should, of course, be made to the appropriate authorities.
Order. I do not require to be thanked, because I am not speaking in the debate.
May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and those of the Prime Minister on the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan tragedy? We express our heartfelt and continued condolences to that community. Last week I asked the Prime Minister to stop faffing about, so can I thank him for finally approving the Jackdaw gasfield? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I notice that there were<strong> </strong>no cheers from Members on the Government Benches. The Conservatives first approved Jackdaw in 2022. Rather than fighting the leftie activists who tried to block it, Labour appointed one of them as Energy Secretary. So many jobs lost, and so much time and money wasted. Britain cannot be a serious player on the world stage if the Government dither for two and a half years over approving a single licence. We have the resources, the expertise and the people; what we have lost is the confidence to make tough decisions. Will the Prime Minister now overturn Labour’s ban on all new oil and gas licences?
I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister mention process—it almost felt like Keir Starmer was still standing there. The Prime Minister talks about renewables. Of course we need renewables, but we live in the real world—the world that still depends on oil and gas. If we do not produce it, Britain and Europe will buy it from Russia. In July, the Prime Minister said: “The question isn’t whether Britain will still be using oil and gas, the question is where does it come from.” He was right. Does the Prime Minister accept that every barrel of North sea oil that we produce is a barrel that Europe will not buy from Vladimir Putin?
The Prime Minister says that this decision strengthens our energy security, so that means that he should approve all new oil and gas licences. He blames the process and our decisions, but he is the Prime Minister now, and we are facing a global energy crisis. Drilling more oil and gas in the North sea would give us more energy, more jobs and more tax revenue, which is something we desperately need. There is a red warning light flashing on the economy. Just this morning, total Government borrowing hit £3 trillion, its highest level ever. That is £100,000 for every household in the country. Even the Prime Minister’s former economic adviser, Andy Haldane—not someone I always agree with—has warned that Britain faces a “precarious fiscal backdrop”, so what is the Prime Minister doing to get borrowing down?
I asked the Prime Minister how he was getting borrowing down—he did not answer. He is talking about the IMF report. I have looked at it, but I do not think that he has, because it downgrades the forecast for next year. It also talks about deficit reduction plans in 2029, which is after an election. The Government are not going to be here after that election. They have not made any cuts. We are spending more on interest payments than we do on schools, the Army and the police combined. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is worrying about loud music on trains. This is not serious. The only solution to the challenges facing our country is to cut spending and cut borrowing. The out-of-work benefits bill is set to rise by £50 billion under this Labour Government, so will the Prime Minister get a grip and cut the welfare bill?
I asked the Prime Minister about welfare—he did not answer the welfare question. That is because he is not planning to cut welfare. This morning, <em>The Telegraph </em>exposed that the reforms he is talking about will not save any money before 2030; in fact, the Prime Minister’s plan is to save money on welfare by spending more money on welfare. This is ridiculous. He is talking about big decisions, but he has not made any decision on social care. Talking about it is not making a decision. He is going to keep spending more, and that means he is going to keep borrowing more. We know where that leads. This morning, inflation rose to 3.5%, the third rise in a row. Families are paying higher bills and more for their weekly shop, and it is leading to higher mortgage rates. Does the Prime Minister accept that his failure to control borrowing is contributing to higher inflation?
We are waiting for the Budget, and next week at the Budget the Prime Minister has a choice: he can cut spending, he can cut the deficit or he can cut tax. There is no other way. That is why that is the Conservatives’ plan. It is a plan that even his former economic adviser Andy Haldane says is the better way. Will he follow that plan, or will he bottle it just like Keir Starmer did?
Let me be clear from the outset that His Majesty’s official Opposition welcome the Government’s recognition that this anomaly needs correcting, and we will not oppose the Bill. We fully support the principle that no Prime Minister should be legally prevented from discharging all their constitutional duties because of their faith. The restrictions in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 are, as the Minister said, plainly outdated and have no place in a modern democratic society. The idea that someone should be prevented from exercising the full responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister simply because of their religious belief is clearly not fit for the 21st century. Indeed, it is remarkable that almost two centuries after those Acts were passed, provisions remain on our statute book that distinguish between those who are permitted to advise the sovereign on Church appointments and those who are not, purely on the grounds of their faith. When one looks at the provisions that the Bill repeals, both their severity and their inconsistency are striking. The law as it stands prevents persons of the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths from being involved, directly or indirectly, in advising the Crown on appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. Moreover, the punishments written into those laws are severe. Under the Roman Catholic Relief Act, a Catholic advising the sovereign on a Church appointment is “deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.” The Jews Relief Act contains a similar threat.<span id="1172" class="column-number" data-column-number="1172"></span> As the existing laws discriminate against Jewish people and Roman Catholics only, they have created the glaring inconsistency that the Minister referred to: my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the former Prime Minister, a practising Hindu, and his successor Keir Starmer, an atheist, were not legally prevented from advising on Church of England appointments, as the current Prime Minister, who is a Catholic, has been. At a time when we rightly celebrate religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law, it cannot be right that the holder of the highest political office in our country should face a legislative bar if they are Roman Catholic or Jewish. Though we agree with the Prime Minister that these laws are an “archaic anomaly”, as shadow Minister I cannot let the occasion pass without a gentle reminder of the Government’s rather sudden conversion to treating the Bill as an urgent priority. On 5 March last year, the Lord Privy Seal wrote to Members of the other House, stating that the Government were considering how to address historical restrictions on Roman Catholics and Jews advising the Crown on appointments in the Anglican Church, but when asked about progress in parliamentary questions last autumn, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said that though the Government would keep the matter under review, “given other pressing issues, this is not a current priority.” It is hard not to notice that removing this statutory bar remained “not a current priority” for the Cabinet Office right up until a Roman Catholic Prime Minister took office. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) observed last week, some people looking at the challenges facing the country today may well feel that there are more important things for the Government to do, although when he rose to make his point of order at the start of this debate, I wondered whether he was going to declare an interest—an ambition for No. 10 that might be affected by this legislation. However, the Bill is rightly before us today, and on this issue, as on any issue of constitutional change, it is important that the Government proceed with clarity and care. In the interests of scrutinising the legislation constructively, could the Minister clarify three points for the House? First, can he confirm that the Bill is strictly and narrowly focused on removing these discriminatory restrictions, and that there are no unintended knock-on effects elsewhere in statute? Secondly, after becoming Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) transferred responsibility for Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor to ensure that such appointments could continue. Can the Minister confirm that this arrangement is temporary, and will remain in place only until this legislation has received Royal Assent and come into force? Thirdly, can the Minister reassure the House that this legislation will not alter the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church? Finally, while we support removing the statutory bar, we also believe that it is important to maintain sensible constitutional practice, so it is the Opposition’s clear recommendation that it would be sensible for Prime Ministers who do not consider themselves to be part of the congregation of the Church of England to delegate the active decision-making on appointments to others, <span id="1173" class="column-number" data-column-number="1173"></span>as recent prime Ministers have done, while retaining their formal constitutional role in advising the monarch. His Majesty’s official Opposition look forward to scrutinising the Bill in Committee and in its later stages, but we will support its Second Reading.
I rise briefly on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition to confirm our support for clause 1 standing part of the Bill. Clause 1 is the operative heart of this <span id="1184" class="column-number" data-column-number="1184"></span>legislation and repeals the remaining provisions to which the Minister referred. In some ways, it feels rather fitting that the Committee is considering this clause on 21 October, Trafalgar Day, because although the nation rightly remembers Lord Nelson today, another great hero of the Napoleonic wars, the Duke of Wellington, who was Prime Minister, together with Sir Robert Peel in this House, drove Catholic emancipation on to the statute book through the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. At the time, the Act was seen as a radically progressive measure. Indeed, such was the strength of feeling that Wellington was only able to overcome the fierce opposition of King George IV and peers in the House of Lords by threatening that his Tory Government would resign and warning the King and their lordships that the incoming Whig Administration would be immeasurably worse. As students of parliamentary history will know, the resulting split in Wellington’s party ushered in a decade and a half of Whig dominance. I am bound to say that I am rather pleased that there is considerably more cross-party consensus on today’s reform. There is, however, an important historical lesson in how we view the statutes that clause 1 amends. Both the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the subsequent Jews Relief Act 1858 were seen in their own day as wildly progressive steps forward that tore down centuries-old barriers to public life. The restrictions they left behind on advising the sovereign on Church appointments were the political compromises of the 19th century, but nearly 200 years on, what was introduced as a 19th-century compromise is now an archaic anomaly and unacceptable discrimination. Over the decades, Parliament has rightly repealed or amended many of the other restrictive measures originally contained in both the 1829 and 1858 Acts, and clause 1 simply finishes that long historical journey. By removing these final statutory prohibitions and their draconian penalties, it ensures that the legal bar on a Roman Catholic or Jewish Prime Minister fulfilling their constitutional duties by advising the monarch on Church appointments is similarly consigned to history. His Majesty’s Opposition therefore support clauses 1 and 2 standing part of this Bill. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> <em>Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> <em>Third Reading</em> <em>King’s consent signified.</em>
As we reach Third Reading, I am pleased to again reaffirm our support for this measure, as we work to ensure that this particular anachronism will soon be consigned to history. Our constitutional arrangements are the product of centuries of history, and we on these Benches believe we should always approach changes to them with appropriate care. Our constitution has evolved considerably since the 19th century, reflecting the changing character of our country and the diversity of the people who serve it, and it is entirely reasonable that our laws should evolve with it. Respect for our history does not require us to preserve every historical anomaly. There is a clear distinction between respecting our constitutional traditions and <span id="1186" class="column-number" data-column-number="1186"></span>allowing outdated 19th-century restrictions to remain on the statute book simply because they have always been there. At the same time, the established Church occupies a distinctive place in our constitutional settlement, and the relationship between Church and state is one that has developed over centuries. In correcting the historical injustice, it is vital that we preserve both our established constitutional arrangement, and the independence and integrity of the Church appointments process. In practical terms, when appointing bishops and archbishops, the Church of England presents a candidate to the Prime Minister, who then advises the monarch on who to install in that role. For nearly 20 years, the Prime Minister has not had much of a role in the selection of Church of England bishops, and Downing Street’s involvement in the process has become largely a formality. That is why, alongside supporting this Bill with the repeal of these discriminatory criminal provisions, His Majesty’s Opposition has suggested that the clear and respectful convention for the future, following recent precedent, should be that Prime Ministers who are not members of the Church of England should retain their formal constitutional role in advising the sovereign while continuing to delegate any active involvement in the decision-making process to others. The ability to serve as Prime Minister and to exercise the full responsibilities of that office should depend on the confidence of this House and the ability of the individual concerned, not their religious belief. On that fundamental principle, the whole House can unite today, so we support the Third Reading of this Bill and wish it well as it proceeds to the other place. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.</em>
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate. In Stockton West, the plague of balaclava-clad yobs on illegal e-motos is a problem that comes up constantly on doorsteps and in my surgery. Three years ago in Westminster Hall, I named Thornaby as a hotspot and warned that we could not wait for someone else to lose their life. On 31 January this year, two 15-year-olds were riding Sur-Rons in Thornaby when one of them ploughed into a father of seven riding a pushbike. Months later, the father is still in hospital with life-changing injuries, needing round-the-clock care. The boys got driving bans and referral orders, and were ordered to pay just £495 in compensation. The recent changes to seizure powers are welcome, but they go nowhere near far enough. I tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to give the police greater powers to enter properties to seize these bikes, to destroy illegal bikes rather than sell them on, and to register and control sales. The Government rejected them all. Meanwhile, anyone can buy a machine that is illegal to ride on a public road, or a kit that turns an illegal e-bike into an unregistered motorbike and have it delivered the next day. I ask the Minister: will the Government control the sale of these vehicles and the kits used to modify them? Will they now give the police the power we proposed to seize these bikes wherever they are hidden? My constituents simply want the law to be on the side of the law-abiding majority. It is time for the Government to make sure that it is.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of University Hospital of North Tees. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate. I was born in North Tees hospital. So were tens of thousands of my constituents and many of their children and grandchildren. For nearly 60 years, it has been where Stockton goes when something goes wrong. It is where we are stitched up after an accident, welcome our children into the world and sit beside our parents in their final days. There are very few families in our town whose story does not run through North Tees at some point. I want to begin by thanking the incredible people who work at North Tees: the doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners and everyone who keeps our hospital going day and night. I have seen for myself their dedication and the challenges they face in a building that makes an already difficult job harder. They deserve decent facilities. Their patients deserve them, too. I have to tell the Minister plainly that the building they work in is running out of time. When my party was in government, I campaigned for a new diagnostic centre in Stockton. Thousands of residents signed my petition and backed that campaign. Around £25 million was secured, with a further £8.4 million from the community diagnostic fund, to bring scans and tests into the heart of our town. For somebody waiting to find out whether they have cancer, that means answers and that treatment can begin. Alongside that came £3 million for the new mental health hub at Brook House, a new respiratory unit, upgrades to the urgent care centre, and a £4.3 million robotic and emergency maternity theatre, where a woman who needs urgent surgery in labour can now get it next door to the delivery suite. That is what investment can achieve, but we cannot keep bolting 21st-century medicine on to a 1960s frame forever.
The hon. Member makes a valid point. Investment in technology—I talked about the robotic theatres in our part of the world—means not only that staff have the facilities they deserve to work with, but that more patients can be treated more quickly, more safely and with reduced recovery times. There is a real value in looking after those patients, all too often at the worst times of their lives. I made the case for a new hospital when my party was in government. I held a similar debate to this one five years ago and backed the trust’s bid for one of the new hospitals. I was devastated when, in 2023, the places in that programme went instead to hospitals built from reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which put them at risk of collapse. I understood why—safety must come first when a roof could fall in—but it pushed North Tees back in the queue, and I have kept pressing Ministers ever since. North Tees opened in 1968. The trust’s own board papers identified 2031 as the point by which its main buildings would be beyond their useful economic life. That is just five years away, and parts of the estate are already past it. The maintenance backlog stands at £126 million, despite around £100 million being spent on repairs in the past decade, and it is projected to reach £300 million by 2033. Staff are working around leaky roofs, broken ceiling panels and pipes that freeze in winter. This is not a hospital that needs a lick of paint; it is a hospital whose fabric is failing. On 2 June this year, heavy rain hit Stockton, and the drainage at North Tees could not cope. The trust’s chief executive told me that every one of the hospital theatres for in-patient surgery, bar one, was flooded. More than 400 patients had their surgery cancelled. Repairs have cost £1.5 million, and re-providing the surgery cost a further £1 million. That is £2.5 million gone, not on treating a single extra patient but on catching up after a rainstorm. Think about the person waiting for an operation: they have arranged time off work, their family have made plans to look after them and they have spent weeks preparing themselves, and then they are told to wait again because the theatre is flooded. That was not a freak event; it is what happens when a hospital runs past its design life, and it will happen again unless something changes. What are local people seeing under this Government? Not a new hospital or a place in the new hospital programme, but job losses. Around 600 posts are to go across our local hospital trusts, with a voluntary redundancy scheme and a vacancy freeze. The trust’s own figures raise further questions. Since 2024, total staffing has fallen from 6,084 to 5,958. Over the same period, the number of managers and senior managers has risen from 91 to 110. That is 2% fewer staff and 21% more managers. Of course, the hospital needs good management, but when vacancies are frozen and a £2.5 million flood bill comes out of the same budget, that increase needs explaining. Every year we wait, the bill gets bigger. A few years ago, a replacement hospital was expected to cost around £380 million. The trust now puts it at between £1 billion and £2 billion. Before the election, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who was then the shadow Health Secretary, came to North Tees and said that “there is no doubt we need a new hospital here.”<span id="409WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="409WH"></span> I agreed with him then and I agree with him now, but when his Government reset the new hospital programme in January last year, not a single hospital on Teesside was in it. When I asked last October what assessment had been made about replacing North Tees, the answer was none, and that there were no plans to invite further schemes into the programme. North Tees is failing in a different way from those RAAC hospitals. Its problem is not one dangerous material; it is a whole building past its life. It is not on the list and there is no list it can join. A hospital whose theatres flood and whose backlog is heading for £300 million should not be left without a route simply because it is failing in the wrong way. Meanwhile, the Tees Valley Mayor has written 25 times to ask for a meeting about the hospital. The answer given by the right hon. Member for Ilford North was that the mayor could show him the colour of his money. Three Health Secretaries later, there has still not been one meeting. A hospital that is running out of time cannot wait for the Government’s revolving door to stop spinning. The trust is drawing up plans, but a plan with no route to capital is just a very expensive document. I have five questions for the Minister. First, what has changed since the answer last October? If the new hospital programme is closed, what route is open? Will the Government assess the case for replacement and set out a timetable? Secondly, will she commit to resilience funding to keep the current building safe until then, so that flooded theatres do not become an annual event? Thirdly, will she guarantee that North Tees will keep its offering, its A&E and its core services while the future is decided? Fourthly, will she look at why management numbers have risen by 21% while overall staffing has fallen, and ensure that cuts never come at the expense of frontline care? Fifthly, will she make sure that the Secretary of State finally meets the mayor, along with me and Members from across Teesside, and the trust, before the end of the year? Better still, will she come and visit our hospital and see at first hand the challenges that our incredible workforce is facing? People across our area, whatever their politics, want the same thing: a hospital that they can rely on when someone they love needs help. I will work with anybody who wants to make that happen. North Tees has seen us born, patched us up and cared for the people that we love at the end. Its staff have kept caring through every challenge put in front of them. The right hon. Member for Ilford North was right: there is no doubt that we need a new hospital. What my constituents want to hear today is not whether, but when, where and how it will be paid for. Our staff deserve it, our patients need it and our community has waited long enough.
I made the point earlier that the mayor has written 25 times but we have not managed to get a meeting yet. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to cajole or commit her ministerial colleagues, or even the Secretary of State, to meet local MPs, the mayor and representatives of the trust, in order to have a discussion about where we go next.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. I pay tribute to the officers, PCSOs, special constables and police staff who serve our communities, including the teams at Cleveland police and Durham constabulary who serve the people of Stockton West. Cleveland has the highest crime rate of any police force area in England and Wales and the highest homicide rate in the country, yet in the year to March, Cleveland police lost 17 officers. Our police and crime commissioner called out a £2.4 million shortfall and rightly pointed out that funding is based on population, not crime. If the Government’s commitment to community policing is to mean anything, it must mean having more officers, not fewer, in areas where crime is highest. The Minister will point to the neighbourhood policing guarantee, but moving police officers between roles is not the same as having more of them. In March 2024, the previous Conservative Government left police numbers at the highest level on record.
We could have a very long debate on that: we could talk about the economic damage done by and the public finance carnage under the previous Labour Government; we could talk about the tough choices that had to be made in 2010; and eventually, we would arrive at 2024, when there were 147,746 full-time equivalent police officers on the streets. His constituents and mine would have liked to see that number continue to go upwards, but it did not, did it? Today, there are nearly 1,900 fewer officers.<span id="461WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="461WH"></span> This year, the Government scrapped overall headcount targets, making funding conditional on neighbourhood numbers alone. If neighbourhood teams grow while the workforce shrinks, those officers have to come from somewhere, and too often, that is from response teams. Those are the officers who come when a resident—the woman whose ex-partner is hammering on the door or the family woken by someone breaking in—rings 999. Neighbourhood policing matters, but it cannot come at the expense of the officers who turn up in someone’s hour of need. That is why the Conservative party would recruit 10,000 extra officers, deploy hotspot patrolling in the 2,000 highest-crime neighbourhoods and roll out immediate justice, so that those who wreck a public space are seen to put it right. The problem is getting worse. The crime survey for England and Wales shows that last year, 40.9% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour, which represents a statistically significant increase. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a pillar of the Government’s guarantee, but, by their own measure, things are moving in the wrong direction. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government publish force-by-force figures for how many new neighbourhood police officers were moved from response roles? Secondly, will the changes mean that residents will wait longer for help when they ring 999? Thirdly, on Cleveland, I welcome the Minister’s engagement with the leadership of our force, but warm words in meetings will not reassure my constituents, so will she explain why the force tackling the highest crime rate in the country has 17 fewer officers than it did a year ago? Will she commit to ensuring that by the end of this Parliament, Cleveland police will have more police officers than it does today? My constituents are not asking about 2024 or 2010. They are asking about the year ahead, and they deserve a straight answer. Our constituents judge policing by whether they see an officer on their street, whether their call is answered and whether the person who wrecked their neighbourhood faces consequences. By that test, there is much more to do. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), although I fear I might not be able to provide such an entertaining and historical perspective. I had intended to speak in this debate as I thought I might be the only Anglican to do so, but the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) has beaten me to it. As a member of the established Church, I—unlike my right hon. Friend—agree for once with Reform. I would actually like some political input into appointments to the bishops’ Bench and one or two other Church appointments. I would like to think that whoever we elect as Prime Minister, he or she would take a very serious view of making appointments to an institution that not only has a vast historical perspective, but plays a major part in education, for example. I cannot remember the number, but the Church of England has many schools in virtually every constituency up and down the country, and the bishops can often play a major part in that. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Madam Deputy Speaker, I see that you are reminding me to stay within the scope of the Bill. Turning to the argument about the appointment of bishops, like the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), I think we should return to the system in which the Prime Minister is offered a choice, and the points I have made should be taken into consideration during that process. I know that my right hon. Friend the Father of the House loves the established Church. Indeed, when I was his constituency agent, I used to build in visits to choral evensong in Lincoln as often as I could. Coming back to the substance of the Bill, I fully support the fact that a Prime Minister of whatever faith should have an input into senior appointments in the Church of England.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this vital debate. Every time I speak to people right across Broxbourne, this issue is at the top of their minds. If I was to ask someone about the regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes, they would say, <span id="390WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="390WH"></span>quite simply, “What regulation?” As far as they are concerned, there is none. We all know about the day-to-day antisocial behaviour linked to e-bikes and e-scooters and are familiar with the horrific stories of their misuse. I have seen it many times: gangs of masked-up hooligans riding in packs, terrorising our high streets with no regard for anyone else’s safety. It makes a mockery of law and order and we need a proper crackdown. What are the regulations? I checked the Government’s website before the debate—not something anyone who is riding an e-bike antisocially would do. The fastest e-bikes need to be registered, taxed and insured, and riders need a licence and a helmet, but it does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that individuals hiding their identity with a balaclava would not do any of that. We need a joined-up approach right across Government that includes the Department for Transport. The Transport Minister in the other place said: “The Government recognise the role that…electric cycles and scooters…can play in supporting economic growth, improving health and reducing emissions.”<span id="vol856_col1220" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="2" data-column-number="1220" data-volume-number="856" data-external-id="DD2CCC10-56F7-495B-B60F-5B72D68F8695">—[<em>Official Report, House of Lords,</em> 9 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 1220.]</span> What a load of nonsense. That is far from the reality faced by people right across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency. The Government need to get a grip and use the full force of the law to stop illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters.
Will the new planning fees be ringfenced so that councils have to spend them on their planning departments?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, and also for taking the time to brief me on the report yesterday. This is an important and timely review, and I pay tribute to Sir David Bell and his team and those brave individuals who came forward to share their experiences, many reliving deeply distressing events. It is a great sadness and a failure on the part of all of us, as a society, that such a review is necessary in 2026. I have met many Jewish parents who have been left with an impossible choice between sending their children to mainstream schools where Jewish pupils are heckled, bullied and singled out, and sending them to Jewish schools with prison-like security, under constant threat from outside. I cannot imagine the fear that parents feel every day about what their children might face at school. If we are to address this stain on our society, advocacy across the House is vital, and I welcome the review’s recommendations, including on the adoption of the <span id="1150" class="column-number" data-column-number="1150"></span>International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, and on the strengthening of guidance, teacher training and teachers’ standards, something that I have consistently called for. I want to raise two points that I hope will be picked up in the implementation review. The first concerns enforcement. Many of the instances that the report describes go against existing guidance. The problem is that when impartiality guidance is breached, nothing happens. The case of the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) demonstrates the problem. His visit to a school was cancelled following opposition from pro-Palestinian campaigners and members of the National Education Union. When Ofsted representatives rightly inspected the school afterwards, they could not investigate the very incident that had prompted the inspection; they could only check, at the time of the visit, whether all obligations were being met. What is the point of an inspection if inspectors cannot examine the incident that triggered it? Will the Secretary of State agree to close that loophole, and will she please explain, in her response, what she expects to happen to a school that does not appropriately address instances of antisemitism? My second point concerns the role of unions. I welcome the review’s examination of their role, but I do not think that the recommendations are strong enough. Asking unions to examine their own actions is allowing them to mark their own homework, and we already know that that does not work. In the case of the banning of the Labour MP, it was an NEU official who put pressure on the school to make that happen. Michaela Wilde, a senior NEU official, reportedly said that she was “very proud” of having forced the school to cancel the visit, warning critics: “don’t mess” with the NEU because “we are not here to play”. And what has happened to her? She appears to remain on the NEU’s national executive, representing Bristol and the south-west. That is shameful. How can someone who campaigned for and celebrated preventing a Jewish MP from visiting a school continue in such a senior union position? Where is the accountability? It is deplorable. Will the Secretary of State commit today to investigating the individuals who have stood by such views and made such statements, and, when warranted, have them removed from schools? Otherwise we might as well go home, because without accountability, nothing changes. Schools do not exist in a bubble. Things that happen outside are too often mirrored in the classroom. The despicable antisemitic Green party motion encourages such sentiments to be brought up in schools. Labour Ministers must reflect on their responsibility: lack of action on hate marches, inflammatory language from the Foreign Secretary and unenforceable performative bans on Israeli goods help no one, and cause a surge in antisemitism. However, today’s measures are welcome. I hope that the Secretary of State will address my points about implementation, unions and enforcement, and accept that we all have to exercise responsibility. My final question is this. The Secretary of State rightly acknowledges that the number of instances of antisemitism is rising, not only in schools but in universities, so will she commit today to repeating this exercise for universities?
The Minister highlights fertiliser costs. Last week, this Government pushed through the fertiliser tax, which will put up the price of fertiliser by between £80 and £90 a tonne, which the Conservatives voted against. The Liberals sat on their hands and did not oppose the tax, which was, frankly, shocking. Does the Minister not recognise the pressures that farmers are facing and the fact that this additional tax that this Government have imposed will do nothing to help?
I am pleased to be able to speak in this important debate. For many parts of my constituency in the Scottish Borders, farming is not just part of the local economy; it is the backbone of the community. Across the Scottish Borders, farming families produce the food we eat, look after the countryside and keep our towns going. Today, they are being squeezed from both ends by a Labour Government here at Westminster and an SNP Government in Edinburgh. Let me be clear from the outset that the sustainable farming incentive applies only to England. Farm support is devolved, and farmers in my constituency could not apply for the SFI, but how a Government treat farmers in one part of the country reveals a great deal about how they regard farmers everywhere. With the two issues that hit every farm in the United Kingdom—the family farm tax and the fertiliser tax—Borders farmers are being hit just as hard as farmers here in England. On the SFI, the facts speak for themselves. In March 2025, Ministers shut the scheme overnight without warning. Then, after more than a year of uncertainty, the new application window opened at 10 o’clock on 22 September. By 4 o’clock that afternoon, the entire budget—around a quarter of a billion pounds—was gone. Thousands of farmers lost out, including around 12,500 who already had agreements in place. Months of preparation, advisers’ fees and business plans were wasted in just under six hours. Farmers cannot run their businesses around a Government lottery. Decisions on cropping, stocking and investment are taken years in advance, not between 10 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon. This Labour Government’s record on farming has been appalling. They created one of the biggest threats facing family farms in recent years with the family farm tax. Even after last December’s partial climbdown, which raised the threshold to £2.5 million, farms above that level, including many in my constituency, still face an effective 20% inheritance tax bill. Farmers are asset-rich and cash-poor. The value of their land does not pay a tax bill; selling the land does. Families in my constituency are still asking whether they will be able to hand the family farm on to the next generation. A Conservative Government will restore agricultural property relief and business property relief in full. Farmers in Scotland are being let down by the SNP, too. Just last week, NFU Scotland warned that the agricultural support budget of around £677 million a year has lost some 20% of its purchasing power since 2014. The union is calling for an increase of around £183 million in the next Scottish budget, and NFU Scotland has also made it clear that a budget being eaten away by inflation is simply not good enough. <span id="1206" class="column-number" data-column-number="1206"></span>Farmers in the Borders are sick of consultations and complicated new frameworks being dished out by Holyrood. They need a properly funded scheme that backs food production, encourages investment and lets their businesses make a profit. That brings me to Labour’s fertiliser tax. From January, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, known as CBAM, will impose a new charge on imported fertiliser. Some have suggested during this debate that the carbon border mechanism was first proposed under a Conservative Government. Its purpose was to stop the British industry being undercut by high carbon imports, but there is no British ammonia industry left to protect.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour Minister did not seem to understand the impact that the mechanism would have. I was even more shocked that the Liberal Democrats decided not to vote against the proposal, unlike Opposition Members. As I was saying, the ammonia that our fertiliser depends on is now just about all imported. For farmers, the fertiliser tax is not about protection, but is simply a further tax on growing food. As the NFU has warned, food grown overseas with exactly the same fertiliser will come into this country with no tax being paid. British farmers will be put at a disadvantage in their own market by their own Government. This tax will hit every farm in the United Kingdom, including the farms on the Scottish Borders that the SFI never reached. As we have heard, the Conservatives tried to stop the fertiliser tax, but where were the Liberal Democrats? They were sitting on the fence. When I challenged the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—she is not in the Chamber, but she was a member of the Committee that was considering this regulation last week—she accepted that there were concerns about the uncertainty and the additional costs; but when it came to the vote, the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands. They refused to oppose the measure imposing this additional tax on our farmers.
The right hon. Member had his time to have his say, but he refused to deal with this issue. The Liberal Democrats have had their say, but have refused to justify their failure to stand up for the farmers and try to stop this. <em>[Interruption.]</em>
According to the Liberal Democrat motion, farmers are “deeply concerned” about the impact of CBAM on fertiliser costs. Too right they are, and I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ late conversion, but noting concerns in a motion is no substitute for standing up for farmers when it counts, and that is when we vote. The party that tells farmers it is on their side does not <span id="1207" class="column-number" data-column-number="1207"></span>then stand up to stop these extra costs, but just walks away. You cannot champion farmers in this Chamber and then abandon them when the vote comes.
My hon. Friend and I were in the Committee that discussed the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Does he share my surprise that the Government did not seem to realise that it would affect fertiliser? There was much focus on cement and steel, but it seemed to come as a shock to them that it would put as much as £70 or £80 on a tonne of fertiliser.
Food security is national security, as the mantra from the Government Benches goes. Yet the reality, I am afraid, <span id="1221" class="column-number" data-column-number="1221"></span>is that it is much spun and little done. The family farm tax sent a chill through my rural Dumfries and Galloway constituency and underscored yet again the disconnect between this urban-centric Government and rural Britain. Now we have the fertiliser tax coming along and again, like the family farm tax, it is deeply flawed. In fact, we had an admission that the family farm tax was deeply flawed from a former Government Minister who pressed its case in this House—incredible! On the price of fuel, there has been much back slapping about the cuts to duty for red diesel. That is certainly helpful, but the reality is that red diesel is up by as much as 60%, and that is an enormous input cost for farmers. It is a big difficulty as well for the fishing sector. I have asked the Fisheries Minister if he will convene a meeting with the fishermen, because British boats are afraid to put to sea when French boats are able to access finance from the French Government to fish in British waters. Funding in Scotland, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), is devolved for farming and agriculture. However, we have also seen in Scotland the SNP Government exercising sleight of hand with the agricultural budget. Money that was intended for farming— supposedly ringfenced—magically disappeared, only to reappear. That is not good enough. Devolve and forget is the order of the day with this Government. We must have more accuracy about what is going on in Scotland. The block grant and the Barnett consequentials go north. This place should have some say in what goes on there. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) opened this debate with his usual paean to the EU. The EU funding settlement is changing and the envelope under the common agricultural policy is shrinking, such that farmers in Ireland are protesting about it. I can assure the House that the farmers in Dumfries and Galloway are in no hurry at all to return to the EU and the idea of a shrinking common agricultural policy.
<Question HRSContentId="{90B995E5-6AAE-48A0-BA8E-85BA30231102}">Q2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{0F47231D-5492-420E-917A-2C48555F1E12}"></QuestionText>Last week the Prime Minister struggled to disclose all his dealings with the owners of Manchester City football club, so I ask him this: in September, did he have a meeting scheduled with Khaldoon Al Mubarak?</Question>
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing us a really important debate. This issue is clearly affecting us all, and Royal Mail is certainly also badly failing constituents in my Kent constituency. I feel the affection for our posties, which she touched on when she spoke about the red post boxes and so on; Royal Mail should be a national treasure, but it is not. My concern is that the situation is getting worse, not better. Royal Mail has been fined £37 million for poor performance in recent years, and there is an Ofcom investigation. Many of us feel that Royal Mail is not fit for purpose and that no change is happening, so does she agree that the Government need to do more by taking enforcement action and putting some more pressure on the leadership?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate. We have all heard from constituents about the problems caused by the illegal use of these vehicles, whether it is people riding e-bikes on the pavement, e-bikes clearly operating in violation of existing rules, private scooters being ridden on the road, or the serious impact of lithium-ion battery fires on public safety. The concerns we hear from the public about these devices underscore why effective and proportionate regulation is necessary. People need to know that those using these vehicles are following the rules of the road. However, combining the two issues in this debate risks being somewhat redundant, given that, where we are not discussing dockless rental schemes, the regulatory regimes governing the two types of vehicles are very different. There is a clear set of rules governing the use of e-bikes. The technical limits in the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 and the associated standards set a reasonably robust framework for their use, but as we have heard, there is a need to go further. That raises the fundamental point we need to consider when examining <span id="399WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="399WH"></span>the regulation of these vehicles: are the current regulations being followed? That is why we must address the need for a much stronger approach to the enforcement of existing laws and regulations. Over the past couple of years, several local and national news organisations have highlighted the increased illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters. For example, data obtained under freedom of information requests revealed that the number of crimes committed on e-bikes in London alone exceeded 10,000 in 2025, but only 221 of them resulted in the perpetrator being caught and charged—a pretty poor rate of 2.2%. To be honest, if we walked out of Parliament now and observed a nearby crossing, it would not take long to spot an e-bike rider flouting the law.
I do not think the hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart. Colleagues from all parties have set out serious concerns in this debate. The police having greater powers and enforcement ability is always welcome, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) tried to get much stronger regulation and enforcement powers put into legislation during this Parliament, and the Government resisted. It would be foolish to pretend that all the powers needed are out there. We would not be debating this in Westminster Hall if all was fine and rosy.
It is a well-rehearsed line, but e-bikes and e-scooters were not actually a thing for a large proportion of the previous Government’s 14 years.
I will give way once more.
I accept the hon. Lady’s point about off-road bikes and dirt bikes, but the technology of e-bikes and e-scooters did not exist. These products were not even for sale for a large proportion of that time.
I said I would give way only once more. I fully appreciate that this is a debate—I give way a lot in debates—but I need to make the rest of my comments. It is almost as if my speech had been pre-written for the first intervention I took: we need to support the police with the resources they need to tackle both the illegal use of these vehicles and their use as enablers of other offences. I appreciate that, last year, the Government introduced legislative changes to make it easier to seize some of these vehicles, but the changes can be effective only if the relevant authorities have the resources to enforce them. Furthermore, I hope the Minister will ask his colleagues to consider policies that enable the police to intervene whenever they witness dangerous behaviour involving e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as ways to impose tougher penalties. Illegal behaviour must be appropriately punished. There must be consequences. That must be combined with increased police recruitment to ensure that officers are available to tackle this reckless behaviour, including targeted enforcement in locations where crime is most prevalent. However, under this Government we have unfortunately seen a reduction in overall police officer numbers. We should therefore commend the police forces that are using existing regulations to tackle the illegal use of these vehicles and finding innovative ways to discourage illegal behaviour. One recent example is the City of London police’s use of its so-called sin bin, which is designed specifically for cyclists who ride through red lights or across zebra crossings. Those caught are required to watch a safety video, which takes considerably longer than it would to have simply waited for the light to change. Of course, that can apply to any bike, but we regularly see users of e-bike schemes engaging in that kind of behaviour. By removing the perceived benefit of jumping a red light or riding illegally across a crossing, these measures could help to deter such behaviour. At the same time, many of us have seen the increasing use of private e-scooters alongside the illegal use of e-bikes. Figures released by the Metropolitan police in July show that it had confiscated more e-scooters in the first seven months of the year than it had in the previous whole calendar year. Some people may ask whom this behaviour harms, but the answer is clear. If we cannot enforce the rules we already have in place, we risk endangering the public, particularly disabled people, who rely on our road safety infrastructure to protect them. That brings us to the increasingly prevalent dockless e-bike and e-scooter rental schemes. Disability charities, particularly those representing people with visual impairment, have highlighted the significant challenges posed by these schemes. Research by the Royal National Institute of Blind People shows that 81% of survey respondents said that bikes or e-scooters left on pavements make their journeys more difficult. I therefore understand the desire to call for appropriate regulation of these businesses. In fact, a number of these organisations have called on local government, and particularly the Mayor of London, to show leadership on the issue and to be clear about what local government wants to achieve from the schemes. I hope we follow the approach set out by the leadership of Westminster city council. Dockless bikes are here to stay, but poorly parked bikes have become a major headache—indeed, a danger—for pedestrian and businesses. It is worth noting that at a meeting with the major <span id="401WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="401WH"></span>operators in August, Westminster city council agreed to share data that would give the authority a much more accurate picture of the thousands of vehicles operating in the borough. The council also stated that dockless bike operators were considering removing or relocating parking bays that are near taxi ranks and disabled parking bays, to help to keep pavements clear. Working with the companies in a way that allows them to operate safely and legally is the principal way we should approach the problem.
I give way to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle).
<em>rose—</em>
Of course, Mr Stringer. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on data sharing, as led by Westminster city council. If the Mayor of London is doing that, it is something that is straightforward and sensible to be done. We need real action from the Government. We need the serious problems that Members from all parties have mentioned in the debate to be taken seriously, and that means listening to both sides of the House and ensuring that the sensible suggestions that have been made are actually met.
At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister quite rightly said that if we do not use our own resources, we will only have to import oil and gas. The Minister, in his statement, rightly said that we will be reliant on oil and gas for many decades to come. Though today’s decision on Jackdaw, albeit late, is welcome, with the answers that the Prime Minister and the Minister gave earlier, the Minister surely has to agree that any delay on new oil and gas licences is damaging to the national interest.