5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
As a fellow west midlands MP, the Home Secretary will be aware that policing in her constituency is incredibly different from policing in Staffordshire Moorlands. Can she confirm that, when we get the police reform White Paper in a few weeks’ time, we will not see any moves to abolish Staffordshire police, which knows how to police Staffordshire Moorlands, and merge it into West Midlands police?
While the Home Secretary thinks about the safe and legal routes, my constituents are concerned about the unsafe and illegal routes. Will the Home Secretary update the House on how many gangs have been smashed in the first 18 months of this Government?
Worcestershire’s farmers have had to endure 14 months of sleepless nights over this policy before this partial U-turn. The Minister has hinted, at the Dispatch Box today, that he appreciates he will also have to U-turn on business property rates, because of the transitional relief coming off too quickly. Can he commit to the House that he will do that U-turn in less than 14 months?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier the Minister said that agricultural property relief was not available under Margaret Thatcher. In fact, it was Margaret Thatcher’s Government who brought it in under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, and it was subsequently increased to 100% under John Major. How might I go about getting the Minister to correct the record?
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. The Minister keeps saying that he intends to end the use of asylum hotels, but the most recent figures show that there are now more illegal immigrants in asylum hotels under this Government than there were at the time of the election. The numbers are going up: 41,000 illegal immigrants crossed the channel last year, a 40% increase on 2023. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s admission in an astonishing letter to President Macron that this Government have no deterrent to stop these crossings? Is it not the truth that this Government have no control of illegal immigration and the only way to stop the crossings is to leave the European convention on human rights and deport anyone arriving here illegally within a week?
We now know that Alaa Abd el-Fattah expressed racist, anti-white, antisemitic and violent views. Members of the present and the last Government say that they did not know about that beforehand, and of course I accept those assurances, but now that we do know about those disgusting comments, will the Home Secretary use her powers under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 to revoke his citizenship and deport him on the basis that he meets the statutory test in subsection (2), namely that he is not “conducive to the public good”?
The statutory test is “conducive to the public good”, and the Home Secretary could use that. Will she now confirm that she will use every legal mechanism to prevent the return to the United Kingdom of Shamima Begum, who chose to support the Daesh regime that murdered civilians, raped thousands of women and girls, and killed people for being gay? More broadly, does she agree that anyone who espouses extremist, racist or antisemitic views or supports terrorism, and who is not a British citizen, should be deported from this country immediately? She has those powers; will she use them?
The Government’s troubles Bill contains no provisions to prevent former members of the IRA or other paramilitary groups from sitting on their proposed legacy commission. Northern Ireland veterans and victims are rightly outraged, so will the Minister use this opportunity to assure the House that the Government will table amendments ensuring that terrorists will not sit on that commission alongside the families of victims?
Order. The right hon. Lady must get to a question shortly, please.
Order. Members will be aware that very many of you wish to contribute to this statement. There is another statement to come, and an important debate later. I encourage you to make your questions short.
Order. I think we have got the gist. We really need to have shorter questions, or not everyone will get in.
Order. Let me update Members. I will run this statement until 8.15 pm, so questions and answers will need to be very short if everyone is to get in. The second statement will probably last only about 45 minutes.
Order. To give Members an update on my previous announcement, this statement will now run its course, because the Backbench Business debate has been postponed until a future date.
After months of sleepless nights, fear and uncertainty, this partial U-turn is a victory for farmers—I pay tribute to farmers across the country, but particularly those in my constituency of Bromsgrove and the villages. Despite the U-turn, this policy should still be scrapped. What can the Minister say to farmers regarding incentives? Where is the incentive for a farm to invest in very expensive capital equipment if it may tip them over the threshold of liability for the family farm tax?
Nearly 17,000 companies licensed to sponsor worker visas have five or fewer employees, and over 3,000 of these have just one employee. Ministers have been unable to tell me how many inspections have been made of companies since the general election. How sure is the Home Secretary that these are not bogus companies offering a back door to Britain?
With two dangerous offenders on the run, many of our constituents will rightly be very concerned and worried. Will the Minister explain what resources are being deployed to capture those offenders as soon as possible?
In response to the question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the Minister said that he respected the views of the officers who had shared their concerns—so why does he think they are wrong?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. On 9 February 2020, the Home Secretary co-signed a letter to the then Prime Minister urging him to suspend a deportation flight to Jamaica for foreign national offenders. Fabian Henry, who had been convicted of grooming and raping two young girls, was removed from that flight and is believed still to be living in the UK. Having previously campaigned to keep them in the country—even demanding in this Chamber that the flight be halted—has the right hon. Lady now taken any action as Home Secretary to deport this dangerous child rapist, whom she helped to remain in the country?
The Minister is keen to take credit for the reduced rate of absconsions. What specific steps have the Government taken to reduce that rate? Will she reassure the public that every single one of the 57 prisoners who absconded—less the two currently at large—have been re-apprehended?
Given the concerns that have been expressed about this Bill and protections for our veterans, what assessment has the Minister made of the forthcoming Haddon-Cave inquiry and the impact that could have on the retention of personnel, given the cohort of people affected are likely either still serving or are of the same era as veterans in this Chamber?
In November, I asked the Government what our position would be if the US took military action in Venezuela, in the light of the new US national security strategy, which clearly outlines the US Administration’s position on the western hemisphere and denial of influence to non-hemispheric competitors. The answer was not clear. Following her discussion with Secretary Rubio, what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the risk that Venezuela may be the first domino in a chain across central America, ending with Mexico? If we do not now recognise Delcy Rodríguez as the legitimate President of Venezuela, is it because she is one of the individuals we have already sanctioned?
The Government have heard from these Benches time and again about the impact the family farm tax has had on food security and the risk to countryside stewardship and our environment and the economic viability of farms, but also, crucially, about the impact on farmers’ mental health. My question to the Minister is simple: on behalf of farmers across Chester South and Eddisbury, why did this decision take so long?
I welcome the removal of Nicolás Maduro, who for too long oppressed the people of Venezuela, but history shows that the aftermath of intervention can be as consequential as the intervention itself. What specific steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that there is no vacuum for instability or hostile actors to exploit both within Venezuela and across the wider region, particularly hostile state actors such as Russia, China and Iran?
Sussex police is one of the most underfunded forces in England, with the number of officers per resident 27% below the national average. Following the national decrease in police officers during the first year of this Government, will the Home Secretary commit to ensuring that police officer numbers go up in 2026?
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy new year. Women are overwhelmingly the victims of hate crimes online, but that is no surprise when companies are promising that the purchase of a self-swab rape kit will deter rapists. That is plainly offensive and shifts the onus on to women and off the cowards who rape them. The kits are also inadmissible in court. We have already had a sexual assault of a child case collapse because of the use of a self-swab kit. For almost a year, rape charities have begged the Government to take action and ban these dangerous kits and their dangerous narratives. Will the Government work with me, support my campaign and commit to protecting women from self-swab rape kits?
This U-turn comes too late for too many. It is extraordinary to hear Labour MPs saying that their farmers are delighted; mine are sick with relief after 14 months. At the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister accepted that he knew that some farmers had planned to take their lives or had already done so, yet it still took him well over a week to decide that rural lives matter. What was it that suddenly changed after 14 months for him to decide that our farmers should be stood by, and should not be questioning whether or not they were going to be here for next Christmas?
Venezuelans are relieved to be free of Maduro’s tyranny. However, Venezuela risks remaining a failed state, rather than being a free state, unless the international community comes together. Oil companies are not state builders, nor are they capable of democratic capacity building or enabling political transitions. I was surprised that there was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement of plans to evacuate British nationals if possible or of how many British nationals are in country. What phone calls has the Foreign Secretary had since this action with the leader of Guyana, a Commonwealth country and nation with whom we have an important relationship? If she has not spoken to that leader, why has she not?
On Monday, the Prime Minister admitted that farmers are considering taking their own lives for fear of the family farm tax—a tax that he described as a “sensible reform”. The next day, I was given a letter for the Prime Minister from 90-year-old farmer and grandmother Mrs Denton. It contains one chilling question that I expect the farming Minister to be able to answer. Mrs Denton asks: “My husband and I now need to know as soon as possible the date we need to die by to avoid the totally unfair inheritance tax that will be forcibly put on our offspring to have to sell or split up a food-producing farm—and do what?”
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and Members across the House a very merry Christmas? I thank the farmers, the food producers, and the pubs, restaurants, hotels and others that will look after us all and ensure that we enjoy a very merry Christmas. We are in a food and farming emergency, with rising food prices, record farm closures and two pubs or restaurants closing every single day. A month ago, the Conservatives held an emergency summit to ask farmers, fishermen and food producers for the urgent solutions they need to survive the next 12 months. Those included launching their sustainable farming incentive scheme, rolling over the fruit and veg scheme, and setting up a scheme to ensure that livestock farmers can afford to feed their animals over winter, as well as axing the family farm tax. I sent those solutions to the Secretary of State hoping that she would do something, but I have still heard nothing back a month later. There has been no action or response from her to that letter.
This is a quick question. Does the Secretary of State think that she is capable of organising a knees-up in a brewery this Christmas?
May I start by paying tribute and offering thanks to all those on the frontlines in our uniform, guarding our seas, guarding our land and guarding our air? They will be on duty for the next fortnight, when many of us will be celebrating, and will not have the chance to be with their families. May I raise a point that I do not really want to raise, but which I am afraid is fundamentally true? The promises of defence spending are actually on the never-never—they are for after the next election. The reality, as the Minister knows very well, is that the uplift he has spoken about is actually a reallocation of money that was allocated to Ukraine and is still allocated to Ukraine. It was coming out of one budget and it is now under the defence budget. That is Treasury chicanery, not a defence uplift. The reality is that we are not considered serious. We complain, understandably, that we are not part of President Trump’s talks, but we are not willing to put in the money or put a stake in the ground to show that we are a capable and equal player. We see what Poland is doing and what the Baltic states are doing, and we are not doing it ourselves. Until we are willing to do it ourselves, I am afraid that the Minister, and all of us here, are not being serious. We are not truly standing with Ukraine, we are not truly defending the British people, and I am afraid that the promises will come to naught.
May I endorse what the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and the Minister have said about Lance Corporal George Hooley, who sounds as if he was a fine individual and a great soldier? On 29 December, it will be the 85th anniversary of President Roosevelt’s famous fireside chat radio broadcast, in which he defined his country, which was not then at war, as the “arsenal of democracy” in support of those countries that were at war. He did not say that Churchill had no cards to play. He did not say that Adolf Hitler should be rewarded with recognition of the countries that had been occupied. By the end of the war, the Americans had seen the importance of standing in alliance with the other democracies, and when Germany was divided, they made certain that the western part of Germany was not a military vacuum. Does the Minister agree that if Ukraine is divided by force, then we democracies must make sure that western, free Ukraine is not a military vacuum either?
Can I explain to the Minister why this U-turn is worrying? She said that there would have to be strong reasons for elections to be cancelled, and then cancelled them on the basis of not very strong reasons. Her predecessor said that there would have to be very strong reasons why boundary changes might happen during local government reorganisation. We are extremely concerned that Southampton city council wants to split off the sensitive waterside that looks towards the rural New Forest and amalgamate that under its power structure in the future. Can we now be confident that those very strong reasons that would have to be adduced for any boundary changes really amount to any sort of guardianship of the situation at all?
Has my hon. Friend and his Committee considered whether anything can be done to encourage more media interest in the subject of the debates that his Committee grants? I have in mind a particularly outstanding debate on Ukraine, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on Thursday 4 December. Every speech from every participant —with the possible exception of my own—was outstandingly good, yet afterwards I could detect no coverage whatever. Is there anything that can be done to persuade those whose responsibility it is to report on the proceedings of this House that sometimes it is worth taking note of what Back Benchers have to say?
While wishing the Minister, and indeed all hon. Members and staff, a very happy Christmas, may I tell her that many of my farming constituents will not be celebrating as they gather with their families, because their hopes of passing on their farms to their children, just as their parents and grandparents did before them, have been made impossible by Labour’s family farm tax? She has already heard from some of them when she and I did “Any Questions?” in Essex a few months ago, but will she now, once again, try to persuade the Chancellor to withdraw this punitive and damaging measure?
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, to the Leader of the House and to my friends across the House. I also wish a merry Christmas to my constituent in Holbeach, Annette Bramley, although at this time she will be grieving the loss of her daughter Holly, who was brutally murdered by a worthless, wicked husband. We have just debated animal welfare, and this week we have talked about violence against women. This man tortured and brutally killed Holly’s pets before he killed her. So often that is the case: first come God’s creatures, then come men and women. Will the Leader of the House make a statement to support Annette’s campaign for a national register of animal cruelty? That would give some solace and hope to those many women and children—and men, by the way—who face domestic abuse.
I have no doubt that you will be very organised and ready for Christmas, Mr Speaker, with all your presents purchased and wrapped. Some of us are not quite like that and will be making panicked purchases around our constituencies this weekend. If people are parking in Penkridge at Boscomoor retail centre or the Quinton Court shopping centre in Great Wyrley, there is a high chance that the parking operator, ParkMaven, will issue tickets on their cars, totally without justification. What more can be done to stop these rogue operators? May we have a statement from the Government?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on moving this timely motion. I declare an interest: I am someone who suffers from hearing loss—it is good to be honest about these things. I recently found a picture of myself in uniform in the pouring rain, looking very miserable in Germany or on Salisbury plain, leaning against a 25-pounder. I can assure Members that those guns went off next to my ear on many occasions, and it is a very loud bang indeed. I am not alone in suffering from some hearing loss. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, if we group together deafness, hearing loss and tinnitus, some 18 million people in the UK are affected by hearing conditions. Of those among us who are 55 or over, more than half suffer from hearing loss, as he said. Of those of us who are 70 and older—Mr Vickers, you and I were born just weeks apart—over 80% have some form of hearing loss. Some 2.4 million adults across Britain have hearing loss that is severe enough for them to struggle with conversational speech in some situations. We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is even more true in medicine than in any other walk of life. I am one of 2 million people in the UK who use a hearing aid. People should not be ashamed of using a hearing aid. People are not ashamed of wearing glasses—the Minister, Mr Vickers, and the distinguished consultant from Suffolk, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), are all wearing glasses. It is a fact of life, and we should support people. The British Academy of Audiology estimates that there are 6.7 million people who could benefit from a hearing aid but do not currently use one. The impact is not limited to wives, irritated that we have not heard them—although I must admit that if someone is known in the family to have hearing loss, it is very convenient. I am frequently ticked off by my wife because I am generally completely useless, and sometimes I pretend I have not heard her, so there are some benefits.
At the risk of giving in to economic reductionism, there is a significant impact on the economy. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People has estimated that untreated hearing loss costs the UK economy around £30 billion per year in lost productivity. Adults of working age with hearing loss have an employment rate of 65%, compared with 79% for those without any disabilities. Hearing loss has a social cost as well, as it has an impact on daily life and often increases isolation. Too often, we are embarrassed by hearing loss when we should be tackling it head on. Another problem is a lack of audiologists. Unwisely, the Government have maintained the cap on the number of people allowed to study medicine—a restrictive measure that the doctors’ unions cling to regressively. The first priority should be the health of the public. We should allow anyone who meets the high standards that we expect of those studying medicine to do so. Instead, the doctors’ unions ensure there is a lack of domestic supply to protect their bargaining position, but that means we are forced to make up the shortfall by importing doctors from other countries, often less developed ones. Many countries, not just fully developed ones, have high standards of medical education. It seems to me, and to many others, morally dubious for the NHS to pick the cream of doctors from any developing country and bring them here. Their diligence, training and expertise are much needed in their home countries. Meanwhile, we have excellent people here who cannot get into medical school—not because they are not good enough, but because the numbers are capped. The shortfall in audiology is yet another reason why we need to address this issue. We have over 3,000 registered audiologists working in the UK, across the NHS, the private sector and educational settings. Figures from the British Academy of Audiology show that 48% of services have reported reduced staff, with an overall decline of 8% in the audiology workforce. Nearly one in 10 clinical posts in audiology are currently vacant, and 65% of audiology services have at least one vacancy. Those shortages exist across multiple salary bands, from junior to senior clinicians. I am not blaming this Government, by the way; I am not being party political. This problem is the fault of successive Governments and Health Secretaries, who have failed to address it. Back in 2006, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People pointed out in evidence to the Health Committee: “A recent NHS workforce project has suggested an additional 1,700 qualified audiologists are required to cope with current pressure. This could take between 10 and 15 years to realise under the current training programmes.” That was back in 2006, so what has happened since then? It will not surprise the experienced observer that not enough action was taken. Hearing loss is one of the most prevalent long-term conditions in England, yet it is often treated as a low-priority service. If we treated it as a core part of prevention and independence, the rewards would be innumerable. As I said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Demand for audiology services is rising, and the International Longevity Centre estimates that by 2031, one in five Britons will have hearing loss. There is at least increasing public awareness, but with an ageing population, the demand for audiology services is rising. That puts additional pressure on the workforce and on service capacity. Community audiology should not be a marginal service. It is a preventive intervention with clear implications for the wellbeing of individuals and families, economic productivity and long-term public spending. Delivering audiology close to home is ideal, particularly for older patients and those managing long-term conditions. The current model relies heavily on local commissioning decisions. There is wide variation in access, as well as in the scope and quality of provision across England. Patients in some areas benefit from straightforward self-referral and timely community services, while others face longer waits or unnecessary hospital referrals. I suspect that the service in London and other big cities is better than that in our home county of Lincolnshire, Mr Vickers. We need to improve the way we collect data on audiology services, so that we can evaluate their impact across the country. Good data will help us to focus on outcomes, as any reform should. National minimum service standards would provide clarity without imposing uniform delivery models. We should preserve local flexibility while ensuring that patients know what level of service they are entitled to expect. Community audiology should be integrated into broader prevention and healthy ageing strategies. Hearing care supports people to remain economically active and socially connected for longer. That is immensely central to maintaining human dignity as we all get older. Early intervention reduces downstream costs in social care and mental health services. The social and economic impact is huge. There is much we can do now that will produce worthwhile results, so we need action from the Minister.
The hon. Gentleman is giving an absolutely brilliant speech. It is such a pleasure to hear a Member of Parliament speaking from direct, personal experience. I want to emphasise one important point that might come out of this debate: a lot of people are paying a lot of money for private hearing aids, but I know from personal experience that, nowadays, NHS hearing aids are perfectly satisfactory.