Chinese Embassy
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the release of unredacted plans for the proposed Chinese embassy.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Chinese Embassy
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very disappointing to get a technocratic history lesson rather than an answer to the meaningful question. Two hundred and eight secret rooms and a hidden chamber, just 1 metre from cables serving the City of London and the British people—that is what the unredacted plans tell us the Chinese Communist party has planned for its new embassy if the Government give it the go-ahead. Indeed, we now know that it plans to demolish the wall between the cables and the embassy—cables on which our economy is dependent; cables carrying millions of British people’s emails and financial data, and access that would give the Chinese Communist party a launchpad for economic warfare against our nation. The Home Office and the Foreign Office say that security concerns have been “addressed”, so I put this to the Minister: had any Minister seen the unredacted plans before The Telegraph uncovered them? If not, why not? Was Parliament misled when we were told that all documents were publicly available? Is it true that in December a briefing was given to our Five Eyes partners on these risks? Does the Minister really have no concerns at all over plans to install heavy ventilation equipment parallel to those cables? What is that for? If the Government are as shocked as we are today, have Ministers already called in the Chinese ambassador to explain those secret rooms? If not, why not? The embassy would create a daily headache for our security services. What confidence can we have that the CCP’s technological capabilities can be contained for a decade, let alone 10? I have consistently asked the Government to require the Chinese to pay for any re-routing of cables if they are to give this go-ahead, so will the Government commit to that today? We understand that the Prime Minister is planning to visit Beijing this month. Is it true that the embassy will be approved this week? That the Prime Minister plans to reward the Communist party, which is holding a British national hostage and torturing him in confinement, and which put spies at the heart of our democracy, is bad enough, but to turn up with a gift in hand, begging for handouts, beggars belief. Labour promised a new relationship with China, yet UK goods exports are down 23%. Surrendering our security for Chinese trade was always a bad policy, but surrendering our security while exports plummet is, frankly, insanity. The Government can claim today they had no idea about the secret rooms, and we will take them at their word, but they cannot now say that they have no power to protect us. We must protect our economy, protect the British people, and deny the Chinese Communist party its embassy.
- Hansard source
Chinese Embassy
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With due respect to the Minister, I submitted this urgent question as the shadow National Security Minister for the Security Minister in the Home Office to answer. How do we in this House get answers on the focus that we have? All questions bar two were on national security, not on planning. The more than capable and diligent Security Minister was forced to sit on the Front Bench, silenced, while his colleague attempted to answer those questions that should have been allowed to be put to him.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to speak for very long, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this debate, which has largely been conducted in a very civil manner and has aired some very interesting positions. The position of the Conservative party is that we are very much open to supporting political parties in Northern Ireland in reforming their institutions, but we stand by the principles of the 1998 agreement, in that we think that ideally any change must come from Northern Ireland itself.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform
It is dangerous that the hon. Lady encourages me to hurry through my speech to get to the point that she has raised but, given that my speech is highly flexible, I will try.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform
Five minutes flexible. We very much hope that, as the institutions in Northern Ireland mature—they are coming up to 28 years old—we will have greater opportunity for a system in which collapse, which is never desirable, is not possible. In any functioning Parliament around the world, it should not be in the hands of one party to bring that process to a close. I intend to take the remarks of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley about the home counties in the spirit in which they were uttered, but Northern Ireland, although it is as much a part of the United Kingdom as the home counties, is not the home counties. The home counties do not have the same recent political history as Northern Ireland, and the 1998 agreement was set up to reflect that. However, one of the things that binds everyone in this room together is that we genuinely all want the best for the people of Northern Ireland. We may have different ideas about how that can be done, but I think that that, as a motivating force, will ultimately enable a position in which stronger institutions are capable of delivering for people, whatever community they come from. Several Members have raised the point that people in Northern Ireland are frustrated with their public services lagging behind those in other parts of the United Kingdom; we have health waiting lists now far longer than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and court delays. I should put on record my deep concern about the current barristers’ strike; I worry very much about what backlogs will emerge from that. Ultimately, we must nurture a world in which there is the tough political negotiation and the ability for compromise that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) described. We can imagine him as Finance Minister, being able to have those tough conversations and get to a conclusion; that is ultimately what we all want. If there are things programmed into the current institutions that are preventing those sorts of conversations from happening now—conversations that happened years ago—we should certainly look at them. I have not heard it before, so I was intrigued by the suggestion from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) that the Northern Ireland Office should, essentially, run things and then be interrogated by the Assembly Members in Stormont. I think the existing—and any aspirant—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be utterly terrified of that prospect, but I have no doubt that it would provide a high level of scrutiny, because it would be possible for all political parties to unite against the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Probably the most pertinent subject—raised by several Members—at the kernel of this problem is majoritarianism. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley was quite right to say that those who are non-affiliated should be considered in that argument. In recent months we have seen, in the way Belfast city is being run, the threat of majoritarianism. Sometimes, when one community has complete control over a council, it starts to do things that will deliberately antagonise another community. That style of politics is to be resisted and avoided. I hope that the combined good sense of the people in this room will ultimately lead us to a position where we have more effective political institutions in Northern Ireland, which enable the people there to get the services that they so richly deserve. I am sure it is possible. I look forward to working with everyone here over the coming years to see what possibilities exist.
- Hansard source
Community Hospital Services
Vital services such as X-rays and scans have been removed from the Oak Park community clinic in my constituency without any prior warning or consultation from the ICB. Will the Secretary of State meet with me to discuss how we can restore those services locally so that my constituents do not have to travel to Portsmouth?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
When the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness said that residents of Birmingham do matter when it comes to the bin strikes, I agree with her—but so do neighbouring constituencies, where we often get the blight of additional fly-tipping as well as having constituents who work at the council. Will she personally undertake not just to get people round the table, but to get this sorted out once and for all?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Does my hon. Friend agree that what Labour promised before the election, to people from farmers to publicans, has been completely betrayed? Almost 2,000 of my constituents in South Shropshire have signed this petition because they believe that the Government have failed and betrayed the British people.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I have made clear my views on the authoritarian approach of digital ID. Many constituents in South Shropshire would be excluded because of remote connectivity. Does my hon. Friend see that as a major issue?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
The hon. Member spoke about the Labour Rural Research Group. Will it stand with the Opposition in rejecting Ukrainian eggs coming into the UK and undercutting British farmers?
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
The Minister said that he welcomed the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), but he did not answer either; he did not tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published this financial year and he did not speak to the critical nature of a decision before going into the next financial year. He has explained missing multiple deadlines by simply refusing to give any further deadlines. Does he accept that this is a choice of this Government, without blaming the previous Government? If this Government can find additional funding for welfare, they could find additional funding to meet this contract.
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
The Minister knows that I have a high regard for his commitment and integrity, and that I have pressed successive Governments for more defence investment, so leaving aside the party politics, will he confirm whether or not the Government accept what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) has estimated, which is that, if this contract is not concluded successfully by March, then it will be too late to secure the future of Yeovil as a helicopter centre of excellence?
- Hansard source
Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes
Does the Secretary of State agree that, in responding to a threat of this magnitude, a graduated response is required, and is she tentatively encouraged by the fact that X has decided to say that users cannot be anonymous in doing that sort of mischief? [Interruption.] Wait for it. I do not think X is taking that step out of the goodness of its heart. [Interruption.] Please do not shout me down. I think that X is taking that step because it is afraid of the sanctions that will come next. Should the Minister not be encouraging Ofcom to impose the appropriate level of sanctions, and to threaten to move to the next stage, so the big tech companies know that if they persist, they will be fined again and again and, ultimately, stopped from broadcasting? In taking that action, X has blinked, but the pressure must be ramped up in a graduated way.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I am very impressed by the Minister’s opening speech and his lightness of touch, but can he explain to the Committee how he reconciles the litany of good effects with the number of U-turns carried out since the Budget was put forward?
- Hansard source
Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, and the robust encouragement that the Government have given Ofcom to act on this issue. When she considers Ofcom’s capacity to act, not just its willingness to do so, will she also consider whether injunctive-style relief ought to be available, so that it can act urgently when circumstances require? May I also ask about risk assessment? Because of the centrality of risk assessment to the process of the Online Safety Act 2023, it matters hugely whether a platform has assessed a risk, leading to its safety duties to do something about that risk. Will the Secretary of State discuss with Ofcom whether X has done a proper risk assessment and kept it up to date? At the very least we now know that X is on notice that its AI tools can be used for the promulgation of illegal content on its platform.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I am sure we all agree that we cannot have sustainable communities if we do not have sustainable high streets. Would the Secretary of State agree that a fourfold increase in business rates over this Parliament does not make high-street businesses sustainable?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
So many words, yet no answer. I asked the Secretary of State specifically about a fourfold increase, like the one that the White Lion on Streatham High Road in his constituency faces. We are talking about a 400% increase, even after transitional relief, from £3,000 a year to £12,000 a year. Will he urge the Chancellor to scrap business rates for businesses like the White Lion on Streatham High Road, and other hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
“You lot”? Not me, thank you very much. I will not impose a time limit, but Members can see that quite a lot of people want to speak, so I am sure they will be considerate to colleagues and will focus on the petition.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I thank you for a cerebral speech, which will probably do you no good at all.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I remind colleagues that this is a debate about a general election, so we want to keep it focused on that.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Order. I remind colleagues that the focus of this debate is not a general critique of the Government, or indeed a general defence of the Government. The focus of this debate is on whether or not there should be a general election.
- Hansard source
Private Rent Inflation
We all know that rent inflation, like all inflation, is caused by over-demand and lack of supply, and we can agree on the need to address problems by building more houses and tackling immigration, but does the Minister agree that the more controls and regulations are imposed on landlords, particularly small landlords, the more they will get out of the rented sector altogether, causing less supply and rent inflation which will hit vulnerable people?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Even more important than the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is the fact that, as I read recently, the average family is paying £12,000 in tax to cover the benefits bill. That is important, because we are taxing entrepreneurial people more, and they will perhaps decide to work a little less hard, so we will all get poorer. I just pray that the Government will have the guts to return to their original proposals—which the Chancellor dropped in the light of pressure—to encourage people back into work, which will mean cutting the benefits bill. I encourage the Government to be true to their original word.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I will not make myself very popular by asking this question, but I will do it anyway. The Minister took me to task earlier because I talked about the total increase in the Department for Work and Pensions budget, which includes pensions. I think all three main political parties are traipsing around the issue of the triple lock. Frankly, if we did not have the triple lock—if there was a serious debate and we could get consensus in this House—we would not have to freeze income tax thresholds, and we could divert more resources to those really, truly vulnerable pensioners. I know that that is not a very popular point, but it is a question that we all seriously have to debate in a rapidly ageing population.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Does the shadow Minister agree that the overall thrust of these clauses is to discourage saving and enterprise, and to hit the people who do the right thing, all to fund more welfare spending? That is not a recipe for growth, is it?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that increasing taxation on dividends will result in more entrepreneurs taking risks, employing people and growing the economy, or fewer?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Is he seriously saying that increasing the rate of tax on dividends will result in more investment in this country?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
A Budget is the most important set of choices that a Government can make, and introducing clause 10 is a choice by this Government. I oppose clause 10 because it extends the freeze on the personal income tax allowance and the basic rate limit for a further three years, from 2028 to 2031. That means that rates will have been frozen for 10 years. The choice in this Budget, as in all others, was clear: will spending be controlled or will taxes be raised? For the second year running, this Labour Chancellor chose higher taxes. In 2024, the Chancellor said that to extend this freeze would be to break her manifesto commitment not to raise the level of income tax, but at this Budget, she did it anyway. At the last election, the Government promised growth. They promised not to raise taxes on working people and to fund public services through a stronger economy, but from the moment that they took office, they have done the opposite. Labour have expanded welfare without reform, handed out huge pay deals without productivity gains and piled costs and regulations on to employers. When the inevitable bill came, what did they do? They reached into the taxpayer’s wallet. These tax rises are a political choice. The consequences of these choices are clear. Taxes on working people are at record highs, growth is sluggish and unemployment has risen consistently since the election. Record numbers are now trapped outside the labour market on benefits, with no requirement and no incentive to seek work at all. Those who do the right thing, who work hard to provide for their families, now face higher tax bills to fund an ever-larger welfare state.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which anticipates my next point. Teachers in my constituency have written to me saying that they will be pushed into the higher rate tax bracket by 2030, paying 40% on any extra work that they do—marking exams during the summer, for example—and that doing such work is not worth it any more. Many pensioners in my constituency, who have worked and saved all their lives, and who have done the right thing, are now set to be punished too. Clause 10 will drag more pensioners with modest private pensions into the tax system. Freezing allowances will mean more pensioners paying tax on their income from savings. Anyone with income from a private pension or income from savings will now face having to fill out a tax return, and that number will grow when clause 10 takes effect. Unlike those in work, pensioners cannot put in more hours or ask for a pay rise. They are victims of this Government’s failure to control public expenditure. Where is all the extra money that clause 10 will raise going to go? Rises in welfare spending. With the uprating of universal credit, the rise in the amount of people claiming health-related benefits and now the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, more and more families are finding it less beneficial to work. Clause 10 is perverse. It discourages work and entrenches dependency. Labour says it is all about fairness and compassion, but in truth it is the opposite. The best way to alleviate poverty is through work, and that is exactly what Labour’s Budget seeks to discourage. There is another choice. Had the Chancellor chosen to control public expenditure, then clause 10 would not be necessary. She could have chosen to make work pay. She could have chosen to reduce our welfare bill, to increase productivity in the public sector, and used savings to reduce debt and protect taxpayers, but she chose not to because when faced with difficult decisions, this Government’s guiding principle is their own survival: surviving the next vote, the next headline and the next rebellion by Labour Back Benchers. This Government have now U-turned on headline policies 12 times. By the Prime Minister’s own admission, that meets the definition of serial incompetence. The people paying for the price for this incompetence are working people, pensioners, and everyone who has ever worked hard and done the right thing to provide for themselves and their families. It is no wonder that my constituents are so livid with this Government, and that is why I shall oppose clause 10, which is the cornerstone of this Budget for “Benefits Street”.
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
Disregarding the Minister’s comment that we have to wait for the investment plan, most people in this Chamber know that that is because the Treasury is letting him do it. Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), I am concerned about supply chain security. We have seen China, for example, put America over a barrel by dropping off renewables and making it reverse. Having supply chains in the United Kingdom is vital. Will the Minister really emphasise to the Treasury that it is a key strategic defence requirement that we are able to supply our military needs from within these borders? Maybe that will get the Treasury to sign off on what he clearly wants to tell us but cannot.
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
Leonardo is an important company for Somerset, Dorset and the wider south-west. The Minister will know that corporate decisions are competitive, and his Department plays a key part in shaping what those decisions will be. The defence investment plan is now long overdue. I appreciate that he probably cannot give us a specific date, but it would be helpful if he could tell the House whether we will see the plan in this financial year or the next.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I hate to interrupt the Minister, but the Chancellor in effect told the House and the country when this policy was first introduced that people need not really worry a huge amount, because not a vast number of farms would fall into this trap. The welcome but limited announcement made just before Christmas will of course reduce still further the number of people who will fall into this trap. He has just set out to the Committee a very complicated set of checklists, including this, that and the other. Would it not make more sense to scrap this whole damned stupid idea, and give a big tick of confidence to our food-security-bringing, environment-protecting, job-creating farming sector, which is so vital to UK plc?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
My hon. Friend is making a serious point. Given the huge discrepancy in the robustness of the figures from the Treasury and wider Government, the challenges they have faced from industry bodies and experts, and the sensitivity of the issue and importance of the agricultural sector, does my hon. Friend agree that while the Treasury may well wish to stick to its policy, it should pause and take some time to build consensus across the sector on the data and work out the trajectory of costs? This back-of-a-fag-packet, fly-by-night way of trying to approach serious policy is simply insulting.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Leader of the Opposition responded to the Budget and opposed it. The Liberal Democrat spokesman would have spoken later down the list, so I beg to differ from the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party was the first party to oppose this proposal, not the Liberal Democrats.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember the Prime Minister saying that “not a penny more on your council tax” would be implemented by this Labour Government, yet constituents in the Worth valley, across Keighley and Ilkley, have experienced a rise of 14.99% in the past two years under Labour-run Bradford council. Does my hon. Friend feel that that meets the Prime Minister’s promise?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Will the hon. Member acknowledge that, in the history of petitions debates, the two most highly subscribed debates have been on petitions asking for a general election in this Parliament? Does he acknowledge that the fact that both those petitions were signed by more than a million people illustrates huge frustration at the Government and that people want them to change course?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Well over a million people signed this petition, a good proportion of them from my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. They want me to speak on their behalf, and to reiterate that this debate is fundamentally about trust—why? Because trust matters in the relationship between constituents and their MPs—and not only MPs, but the Government of the day. Let me take us back to the last general election, when many Labour Members were knocking on doors in my constituency promising change. They promised that, if they were lucky enough to get into Government, they would not increase taxes on hard-working people, would not raise council tax by a penny, would return to a politics of service and would ultimately deliver a strategy aligned to their manifesto. What have we seen? We have seen rising taxes on working people. Council tax has been raised by 14.99% in my constituency alone in the last two years under Labour-run Bradford council, so that tax is increasing on hard-working people. We have seen betrayals and U-turns, and I will go into a few of them because ultimately that is why so many people—more than a million—have signed this petition. It illustrates the level of frustration out there among the wider population. This is the second petition on this issue that the Petitions Committee has considered. Let us start with the betrayals. Our farmers and family businesses have been impacted by choices this Labour Government have made. Those choices and changes were not indicated before the general election, such as inheritance tax challenges with agricultural property relief and business property relief. We have seen 14 months of huge amounts of anxiety and frustration among our farming community and family businesses, which will now be exposed to an IHT liability of 20%, over and above a rise in the threshold to £2.5 million. That rise only took place at the 11th hour, three days before Christmas, after 14 months of many of those farmers and family businesses raising their concerns. We saw Labour MP after Labour MP go through the voting Lobbies, backing the ambitions of the Prime Minister and Chancellor to increase tax on many of our hard-working farmers. Only one Labour MP had the courage and the backbone to stand up on behalf of his constituents and tell the Chancellor that he did not agree with the proposals she and the Prime Minister had made. All those family businesses, whether in hospitality, brewing, manufacturing or engineering, are being impacted by the IHT changes. I was with the owners of a business that makes furniture in my constituency, who had worked out that their business property relief liability was already about £800,000. They employ 250 people in Keighley, and will be directly impacted by this Labour Government, who—dare I say—said that they would not do this and did not include it in their manifesto. That is a betrayal that this Labour Government has rolled out.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
I have to confess that I am not aligned with the detail of that case, but what I do know is that the hon. Gentleman, who represents York Outer—a very rural constituency—and I believe sits on one of the key all-party parliamentary groups for food security, was one of those Labour MPs who voted against the inheritance tax changes that the Conservatives advocated. I am sure the hard-working farmers and family businesses in his constituency will feel a huge amount of frustration that he did not stand with them. Then there is our pub industry. The huge rises in business rates and employer national insurance contributions are hitting many of those hard-working businesses within the hospitality sector and the pub industry. No wonder it is very difficult for a Labour MP to get a pint in a pub, many of which they have been quite rightly asked not to return to. Of course, the rise in employer national insurance contributions is hitting all businesses. I have had many conversations with our hard-working teachers and headteachers, who regularly tell me about the tough choices they face about making teaching assistants redundant because of the rise in employer national insurance contributions. The grant that comes out of central Government to cover the rise covers only about 70% of the increase in costs, so the additional 30% must be covered by the existing school budget. There are also the free school meals and breakfast clubs—but who is paying for them? The schools are, out of their existing budgets. Labour MPs want to roll out the narrative that our constituents are going to receive all these benefits, and of course we want to see those benefits happen, but they must get to grips with the facts of the case. Hard-working hospices now cannot provide end-of-life care and schools cannot roll out education because they are having to make tough choices around paying increased levels of employer national insurance contributions. That betrayal was not in the manifesto.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Obviously I agree that children need to be fed, but I would gently say to the hon. Member, “Be honest with the public.” The Prime Minister promised before the general election that hard-working people would not be taxed. What was then rolled out? A rise in employer national insurance contributions. It is those organisations that provide a public service—our councils, hospices, hospitals, GP practices and schools—that are impacted by that rise, and their budgets have not increased at the same rate as those taxes have. Therefore, the level of service that they are able to roll out is diminished as a result of this Labour Government. Having spoken to many constituents on the doorstep, I know that what angers them the most—the reason they signed this petition—is they have been duped by this Government through promises that did not come through and a strategy that was not in the manifesto. The Government then followed up with the U-turns—crikey, what have we seen this year alone? Inheritance tax changes have been rolled out on our farmers and small businesses—yes, the relief has increased, but it goes nowhere near far enough. The Conservatives believe that the family farm tax and the family business tax should be axed, but the thresholds have simply been tweaked. Then, of course, there is the statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. Let us rewind to a year ago: the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), stood at the Dispatch Box and said that we would have five local inquiries into grooming gangs, yet every Labour MP voted against having a national inquiry. It was only as a result of campaigning by the Opposition, as well as by many victims and survivors, that the narrative that we had to have a national inquiry continued. A year later, the Government were brought to the House—dragged to the House—to say that we would be having a national inquiry.