Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
What does the Minister say to childminders in Melton and Syston who are concerned about potentially increased administrative burdens and cash-flow pressures, as a result of changes under Making Tax Digital for businesses with a turnover of at least £50,000? It is scrapping the blanket 10% wear and tear allowance, and replacing it with a requirement for line-by-line item accounting, with childminders having to pay up front and claim back later.
I hesitate to add to the Minister’s in-tray, but he will know that we have existing protections of some sort for leaseholders and freeholders, as right as he is to want to go further. Residents in the Cooden area of my constituency have been sent letters by a company called Asset Invest Ltd demanding thousands of pounds, which it says is to regularise covenant breaches. That, to me, seems unjustified and has some of the hallmarks of the unregulated charges that leaseholders have faced in the past. This is probably an issue that affects MPs across the House. Will the Minister be so kind as to meet me to explore how we might address this issue as well?
The Secretary of State is essentially talking about postgraduate training. I wonder what thought he has given to new clause 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). I have spoken to students who worked really hard all the way through medical school to get the best exam results and perform highly but then ended up in an allocation system that pays no attention whatsoever to that. Merit has been entirely removed from the system. I think it was wrong for us to make that change. Does he have any sympathy for returning to a merit-based system?
I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition, but first I should declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician and member of the British Medical Association. Medicine is a vocation, but it is also an art and a science, and training takes a long time. After, in general, five years as a medical student, new resident doctors need to train further in a specialism such as orthopaedics, ophthalmology or, in my case, paediatrics. Postgraduate training varies in length and structure among the specialties, but in broad principle it is divided into a foundation programme and more specialist training. The foundation programme is two years long and teaches a variety of skills. Specialist training is more specific, and there are well over 60 different specialties that people can choose from. It is those two phrases—the foundation programme and specialist training—that the Bill refers to. We are in a situation where there has been a huge surge in the number of applications per training post. One reason for that is the substantial increase in the number of medical school places. That was caused by action by the previous Conservative Government to improve the number of doctors in the long term. The previous Government opened five medical schools—at Sunderland, Anglia Ruskin, Kent and Medway, Edge Hill and, very close to my constituency, Lincoln. The first students at those universities graduated in 2023, 2024 and 2025, which increased the number of students looking for posts. At the time there was also a widespread expansion of existing medical school places—and, of course, there was the pandemic. During the pandemic, students who had applied for medical school and accepted offers found themselves unable to take their exams, and teacher-assessed grades meant that there was a huge increase in the number of successful applicants who got the grades they needed. There were more compared with the number that was statistically expected. The Government lifted the cap, and there was a huge number of medical students in that period. Many of them qualified last summer. That is why there is a huge increase in the number of local graduates. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), the Secretary of State talked about his pledge to double medical school places, but there does not appear to have been an increase in the number of medical school places this year, and a statement from the Department for Health and Social Care at the weekend suggests that it is not a Government commitment. When the Secretary of State was asked whether he stands by his pledge, he seemed to say no, so I would appreciate it if the Minister clarified that issue. In 2024 at a visit to the Royal Derby hospital, the Secretary of State said that that site would be part of delivering the doubling of the number of medical school places that Labour is committed to in order to ensure that the NHS has the staff it needs to treat patients on time. He then encouraged people to vote for that in the 4 July general election. Will he clarify whether he stands by his pledge, and if so, when does he expect to start delivering on it? UK factors are not the main cause for the rise in numbers. The BMA has published figures from freedom of information requests that show that the number of UK graduates applying for training programmes went up from 9,273 in 2023 to 12,305 in 2025, which is an increase of about a third. Over the same period, the number of international medical graduates applying for specialist training went from 10,402 in 2023 to 20,803 in 2025, which is a doubling of applications. The surge in numbers has left British graduates facing unemployment. Some may pursue careers overseas and not return. The valuable contributions from international medical graduates are appreciated, but many complete training and return to their home nation, which could leave us with a potential shortage in the long term of consultants and GPs. The Government are right to step in to prioritise local talent. As such, we support the principles behind the Bill. However, there are some issues that we have questions about. First, the foundation programme applications are in progress. An application window closed on 8 October, and pre-allocation outcomes were due in mid-December. Foundation school applications due on 26 February are also to be delayed. The foundation programme website states that allocations can only occur once the Bill receives Royal Assent. That delay in itself, and the uncertainty associated with it, is difficult enough for young doctors and their families. Yet the Secretary of State creates an extra layer of uncertainty by adding clause 8 and the right to withhold activation of the Bill to a day of his choosing. Why is he doing that? What are the foundation programme and the people who run it to do? Should they wait, based on, “Will he, won’t he?” and, “When will he allocate it, when will he not?” Should they allocate places anyway, on the basis, as has been said already, that people need to know where they will live and sort out their arrangements? Or will they have to reallocate if the Secretary of State activates it, after it was allocated on the basis that he had not done that yet? That is not the way to treat professional, hard-working people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said in his speech, this is not just about doctors; it is about patient safety now and in the future. The Conservatives have submitted an amendment that would activate the Bill on Royal Assent. I urge the Secretary of State to do what is right for the country and for patient safety and support it. Secondly, Labour has forgotten the British people—those we represent and should prioritise. I will say more as we consider the specific amendment, but under Labour’s Bill, foreign nationals completing a primary medical degree in Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and the UK are in a priority group. Yet a British citizen who trained in the USA, Canada, France or even the Malta campus of a UK medical school are not. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) talked about the likelihood of international medical graduates leaving the UK after training, but surely that is an argument to ensure that British trainees are prioritised wherever they have trained—if the degree is suitable. The Conservative amendment ensures that British people are always front and centre, and we urge the other Opposition parties to back it. The issue of British citizens was raised earlier too. I want to clarify for the avoidance of all doubt that when we say “British citizens” we mean those from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are other clarifications, which I will be grateful if the Minister can address when winding up. On military doctors, what position is in place to ensure that military resident doctors are able to access the posts that they need? What impact will the Bill have on them, particularly if, as the world is more dangerous now, they spend more time overseas in future than at present? As Conservatives, we believe in meritocracy and, as such, I support new clause 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). We all want excellent doctors and—I will say more about this in Committee—a random allocation does not encourage excellence. It produces stress and uncertainty, it does not encourage excellence, so I support the amendment. We agree with the principle of the Bill, but we encourage the Government to accept amendments that encourage excellence, to think through the detail, to put politics aside and do what is right for the country, to prioritise British citizens and to activate the Bill immediately on Royal Assent.
I will speak to the amendments tabled by the Opposition. First, amendment 9 would require that from 2027, priority is given to British citizens on UK foundation programmes, and that they are prioritised for interviews and places on specialty training programmes. Clause 4 defines a UK medical graduate as a “a person who holds a primary United Kingdom qualification within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983 (see section 4(3) of that Act)”. However, it does not include “a person who spent all or a majority of their time training for that qualification outside the British Islands.” The Secretary of State has stated his intention to prioritise UK medical graduates, but he has failed to protect all British citizens in doing so. Our amendment would ensure that British citizens who study on an eligible medical course overseas were still prioritised in the Bill. There are many scenarios in which we may need to ensure that we protect British citizens. Consider, for example, a spouse, partner or child of a serving member of the UK armed forces who completes relevant training overseas while their relative is posted in Cyprus; a student at Queen Mary University of London who has completed the bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery course at its Malta campus but received a UK medical degree; a young British citizen who has studied in the US or France, owing to a family relocation; or, given that the largest bottleneck is not in training places but in getting a place in medical school at all in some cases, a British student who has gone to study overseas because of their fervent desire to become a doctor. Those are all entirely possible and plausible scenarios in which British citizens have completed their relevant training, and wish to bring their skills back and to relocate in their homeland for the rest of their career, but may not be covered by the Government’s prioritisation model. The Government’s prioritisation model is based on where the degree was taken, rather than also considering who did it. The Secretary of State must ensure that we do not overlook our own citizens if we are to fairly address the competitive landscape for training posts. The Opposition therefore urge the Government to accept amendment 9. Amendment 10 is a probing amendment to explore the effects of the Bill on military personnel. As a Member of Parliament representing an area with a large armed forces community, I know that medical trainees are an integral part of our serving community. The world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place, and junior trainees may be sent abroad earlier in their career than is currently the case. It is clearly wrong to penalise people who are doing brave work caring for our armed forces. They ought to be provided with optimal opportunities, and the Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that they are not overlooked. I would be grateful if the Minister covered that in her response. New clause 3 would require the Government to make an annual report to Parliament about the Bill’s impact on the number of international students at UK medical schools, and the financial impact on UK medical schools. We talked about the bottleneck, and the balance between UK and international students training at UK medical schools; clearly, becoming a UK graduate will now come with a significant premium. What impact will that have on British children getting to make their choices and become doctors if they want to? What incentives does it provide to universities to increase the number of international students, and what effect will that have overall on UK medical schools? New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), is about places for UK foundation and speciality training programmes, and the importance of allocation on merit, because we all want the very best doctors. When I became a doctor—believe it or not, it was 25 years ago this year, Madam Deputy Speaker—I applied for a job as a junior house officer, as it was called then. I applied for the jobs I wanted, I was interviewed by the consultants who would have been supervising my training, and then I was offered the jobs. The experience of students today is very different. They are allowed to put in a preference and say which deanery or foundation area they would like to work in, but that is all. After that, the application goes into a computer system, which gives them a single rank that is not based not on anything they have done at university, or on whether they got good results or worked hard, or anything like that. The computer system will do a first pass, and if the first choice is available, it will give the student their first choice. If it is not available because by the time its gets to that student those places have gone, the computer system will miss the student and go on to the next one. When it has completed its full pass of the list, it will start again, and when it comes to that student next time, it will give them the highest preference that is still available. Once the student has been allocated a foundation deanery, the process starts again within the locality, and I mean “locality” in the loosest possible sense. Take those applying for the Trent rotation; they could be posted in Lincoln, Boston, Nottingham, Derby or Burton. The doctor has no control over where they will go, and very little ability to express a preference. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke about a student in her locality who had not been able to get a place, despite being at the top—third, I think—of their university class. It is clearly not fair to give people no opportunity to control their future. By the way, there is no right of appeal, so having been given their place, the choice for the student is: that place or no place. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) spoke about ordinary children from the north-east. Having once been an ordinary child from the north-east, I agree that it is important that people have opportunity, but it is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, that matters. I worry that the system creates equality of outcome. We therefore support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Amendment 1 would require the Bill to take effect on the date of Royal Assent, as opposed to a date at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The Bill is deemed necessary emergency Government legislation to prioritise medical graduates in the United Kingdom for places on medical training programmes. When he announced the Bill in an attempt to avert industrial action by resident doctors in December, the Secretary of State told the House that he had been working intensively with his team to “to see how quickly we could introduce legislation”—[Official Report, 10 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 430.] However, the Bill does not commit to a date when these measures will be enacted. Instead, the power lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, giving him a clear bargaining chip for future negotiations. It is clear that the Government intend to pass this legislation urgently, as they have said. However, without a commencement date, there are clear concerns that the Bill is just a negotiating tactic to prevent industrial action by resident doctors, and can be scrapped at a later date. There remains the prospect of further industrial action, despite the legislation being introduced. The Secretary of State should not be asking Parliament to pass a Bill that he has no intention of enacting if the British Medical Association plays ball and holds off on strikes. Either the Secretary of State thinks that this is emergency legislation that we need to get on with and enact, or he does not. It is vital that the legislation is enacted straight away, because students are due to be given their training programme places now, and they need to decide where they are going to live. They cannot put their life on hold, and measures to prioritise UK doctors cannot be held off, until the Secretary of State has finished dangling a carrot in front of the British Medical Association. The Opposition are clear: while we are supportive of the principles of the Bill, it must be used for offers made this year. Amendment 8 would clarify that under clause 5, a UK foundation programme is a programme where the majority of training takes place inside the United Kingdom. A foundation programme is defined as “an acceptable programme for provisionally registered doctors” in section 10A of the Medical Act 1983. It is vital to clarify that a UK foundation programme is a programme where a majority of training takes place inside the United Kingdom. That is because the General Medical Council can approve foundation programmes overseas. If it is not explicit that a foundation programme needs to be in the United Kingdom, a loophole is created whereby a foundation programme could be approved overseas, creating a back way into the system and circumventing the measures that the Government have tried to put in place. I encourage the Minister to look at that carefully as the Bill progresses. In summary, we support the Bill, but we have concerns about some of the clauses, so we have tabled amendments that we hope the Government will look at carefully.
I will start with what is now a traditional declaration: I am a non-practising doctor and my wife is a doctor. I thank the Secretary of State for his comments, and for thinking through the content and merits of my new clause 2, on allocation based on merit. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds through this place and the other place, he continues to focus on that, because it is a very important point. For my Second Reading speech, I am not going to focus on the details of new clause 2—I will hold that back for Committee. Instead, I want to make some general comments. In a sense, the Bill treats the symptoms of what has been happening in the medical workforce. I do not think it is a cure for the fundamental disease or the problems we have had over the years, which are in part down to a creeping de-professionalisation of the medical profession. I also think they are down to the way we have approached doctors’ appointments to placements, and how we assess their skills and CVs, and how that then leads to different appointments and places. Doctors are thrown from pillar to post, subject to the whims of a computer or a training programme. It has been shown time and again that one of the most important things in people’s eyes, or at least what gives most work satisfaction, is autonomy. Unfortunately, we have sleepwalked into a situation, in pursuit of a weird type of fairness in the allocation of jobs, that works towards equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity. Doctors have found themselves unable to compete or have control over their lives. Where they are allocated to their foundation school or their specialty training has a real, material impact. Crucially, within allocations, the geographical regions are huge. That means uprooting: moving your family and your social network. In the training scheme there really is no power that a doctor can exert in terms of choice or preference. My understanding—I am a creature of the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Medical Training Application Service, when I was coming through and applying for posts—is that we just used to let doctors competitively apply for different posts and put together a sort of portfolio CV. That has all changed. There is now the allocation to training programme schemes and national contracts, which is something I have been campaigning about for quite some time. Do not get me wrong: I think the way the BMA has behaved is absolutely appalling. I categorically and unreservedly condemn the approach that it has taken, and not just under this Government but under previous Governments over various disputes concerning junior doctors. But the fact that doctors have found themselves in a situation where they need to have a militant trade union is a consequence of the training schemes, programmes and national contracts not treating doctors as professionals when it comes to applying for jobs. It also means that the training providers, the trusts and the integrated care systems, cannot provide options that doctors might want to compete for. They cannot say, “Well, we’re a really good research unit, so we’re going to have an offering that pursues a certain type of doctor who wants to go down the academic pathway.” We do not have trusts or regions that can say, “Actually, this is an area where there is quite a lot of social and economic deprivation, so we want doctors who are interested in certain specialties.” For all sorts of different reasons, there are parts of the country that are oversubscribed and parts that are undersubscribed. We cannot use what we use in every other walk of life, which is changing remuneration to encourage people to go to other places. We cannot say, “You know what? Let’s look at flexible working arrangements.” As part of my medical school rotations, I was in Barnstaple. I can only imagine that if the trust for Barnstaple had recruitment challenges—I do not know if it does or does not—then it could look at whether people are into surfing or ensuring they could get involved in other activities outside of medicine. Dare I say, as a former doctor, that medicine is important but there are more important things than people’s careers, in particular their work-life balance. We have a system that does not enable that to happen. The behaviour of the BMA is, in a sense, a consequence of dismantling the normal human experience in the approach to the selection and allocation of jobs. That has real consequences locally. Ashford and St Peter’s, my local trust, struggles to recruit because of the proximity to London, which has London weighting. Since we are on the border of London, to look at it purely financially—if that is the main priority—it makes more sense to pop into London and work than it does being employed in my area. Runnymede and Weybridge, by the way, has house prices and a cost of living that are equal to a big chunk of London, but there is no approach to regionalisation. I am really glad that the Secretary of State is in his place to hear my contribution. I will say to him something that I have said to many previous Secretaries of State. When he is in those difficult negotiations with the BMA and hears from doctors about the workforce experience challenges that they have, would it not be better if we trusted doctors—and, for that matter, anyone who is subject to a national contract—to make decisions for their own lives, and that we devolve decision around pay and terms and conditions to some form of regional unit? For medicine, the obvious solution would be the integrated care systems, but there could be different solutions and ways of approaching it. I think ICS devolution would make the most sense, but there are other opportunities to do it. That way, it moves from the Government essentially getting stuck in the middle of doctors, who are making difficult decisions about their careers and having to balance and judge different T&Cs of work, and the employers, which are different NHS trusts, being unable to use the normal mechanism that any other employer would use to recruit and incentivise people. If we do not do that, unfortunately the consequence is a Bill like the one we are debating: ever-increasing state intervention to try, in the absence of a market system, to impose a command economy. The Secretary will have seen the issues dealing with local doctor prices. The fact that we have struggled with high locum payments for so long is because we do not allow the doctor employment market to resolve itself for adjustments in contracts. The system would save a huge amount of money overall if, rather than having a huge amount of money going to locums and a national contract system for doctors, we let the market sort it out. I will support the Bill, but I see it more as palliation than the definitive treatment that we need to solve the workforce problems for the NHS going forward.
As always, Mrs Cummins, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to speak to new clause 2, which stands in my name and is supported by many other Conservative Members. I declare again that I am now a non-practising doctor and my wife is a doctor. I believe that ambition should be encouraged, and success should be dependent on the talent and hard work of the individual. However, in a vocation where we really want to encourage and support the brightest and the best, the signal being beamed out by the NHS and its various arms and quangos is unfortunately quite different. We have already seen this over the years in how the NHS treats competence and excellence among doctors—someone could be the best doctor in the world and be treated exactly the same as someone who is just about competent. No other operation would approach employment, and celebrating and supporting success, in that way. I do not think, though, that I have ever seen as egregious and extreme an example of completely ignoring talent and merit as the preference informed allocation system. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), has laid out some of the details behind that system, but I encourage Members across the Committee to read about how preference informed allocation works—about the soulless, computerised, algorithmic method by which it allocates human beings a random number. That random number is then the sum total of those people’s dreams, hopes and ambitions when it comes to placements as they take their first steps into their medical career. To me, PIA looks better suited to the dystopian sci-fi programmes that I enjoy watching—better suited to “Logan’s Run” or “The Prisoner”, in which people are allocated numbers. It is not the way that we should be treating people in this country, and it is outrageous that such a system has been brought into force. We in this House should stand up for merit, and I really hope the Minister will affirm from the Dispatch Box today that the Government will dismantle this awful scheme.
Will the Minister give way?
I will call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. There are about half a dozen Members seeking to catch my eye, so they will have five or six minutes each. Colleagues should reflect on keeping their remarks brief—a copybook example of which will be provided by Graham Leadbitter.
I call the co-sponsor of the debate, Jim Allister.
I appeal to colleagues to be brief in their remarks so that we can get everybody in.
Given that it is his birthday, the hon. Member sponsoring this debate has quite a long time to wind up. He does not have to take the full 10 minutes.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
The Bill is basically a good one, and we all share the intent to encourage home-grown talent to remain in our national health service, so could the Health Secretary explain why he appears to have set his face against British students who for various reasons train at, for example, St George’s in Cyprus or St George’s in Grenada and who then want to come back and practise in our national health service? They want to come back and practise at home. Amendment 9 would deal with that conundrum. Why will he not support it?
I am grateful to the Health Secretary; he is being generous with his time. Is he saying that he intends to use this as some sort of lever or bargaining chip in his discussion with the BMA?
I think the Secretary of State has perhaps misunderstood how traumatic the process is for the young medical graduates going through this performance. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the sooner this legislation comes into force, the better it is for those young people, some of whom are finding the current situation incredibly difficult? They do not know what the successor scheme will look like, and the delay is adding to that unhappiness.
I entirely agree with the Chair of the Select Committee that we need to keep Brits working in our national health service. Does she agree that we need to add to the priority list British nationals who, for one reason or another, are training in medical schools outside the United Kingdom—in Prague, in Malta, in Cyprus and in the Caribbean? The reasons why they are training in those places are many and varied, but they are British, and their intent is to practise in the national health service. However, they are being deprioritised by this measure.
Putting up a sticker saying “No Labour MPs welcome here” is obviously a successful strategy if you want to get a change from the Treasury. However, what we have ended up with will lead to real complications on our high streets, because a pub that is helped by today’s announcement will be next door to a restaurant that serves alcohol and occasionally has music, which in turn will be next door to a music venue. Businesses on the high street will now be treated in a range of different ways, so why has the Minister chosen to single out pubs and music venues?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am sure that Members will have been hanging on to the Minister’s every word, but they may not have made it through the dense forest of governmentitis, so let me be very clear: the measures in the instrument, which will be imposed from 2027, will reduce the supply of free allowances, thereby increasing the carbon tax in this country. That is explicitly stated in the Government’s impact assessment. Free allowances have been the mechanism that we use to protect businesses such as cement and steel from being undercut by cheaper imported products from countries that do not charge carbon taxes. That has meant that those businesses have not faced higher costs from the tax, and therefore, neither have consumers. Because of the CBAM, the protection is being moved to a tariff placed on imports at the border, which means the free allowances in the domestic UK market are being phased out. Members should be clear that that means the carbon tax will now start to be charged on the production of goods produced for the British market that otherwise had been protected by free allowances, and British consumers will face higher prices as a result. What does this mean in practice? The carbon tax is paid by industrial businesses such as gas power stations, oil refineries and food manufacturers. The Government make them pay a tax for every tonne of carbon they release during their production. Naturally, those taxes are passed straight through to consumers in higher prices, so if the Government increase the carbon tax they increase the price of basic goods like electricity, petrol and sugar. The Government know that, because in the impact assessment for this legislation they admit exactly that: higher carbon taxes will be passed through to consumers as higher prices—it is in paragraph 18.8 for any Members who are checking. That means higher energy, food and petrol prices. The Government insist that they need to do this because they have decided to link the UK carbon tax scheme to the EU’s. That was their decision—it was a political choice—and that alone has doubled our carbon tax since the start of last year. We are not talking about a slight increase; we are talking about a tax that has more than doubled in less than a year because of choices made by this Labour Government. Families across the country will have less money in their pockets, not because of an act of God or events outside the Government’s control but because of an active policy choice made by Labour Ministers. Doubling the carbon tax has increased electricity bills alone by £4 billion. In fact, the carbon tax imposed by the Government now accounts for over £100 per year, or over 12%, of the average electricity bill. The increase is costing the wider British economy an extra £5 billion a year, and the legislation that Labour Members will vote for today will pile more costs on to consumers. The Prime Minister recently said that his priority is the cost of living, but across his Government hundreds of decisions like today’s are raining down more regulations and higher taxes, which are pushing costs up. These are policies that will push rents up, that have driven food prices up and that are landing on people’s energy bills. The impact assessment accepts that today’s policy will push up energy bills but, extraordinarily for a Government who say that their priority is the cost of living, it does not give a figure of by how much. That is why the Prime Minister will fail and it is why this Labour Government are failing. There is no appetite, or accountability, in his Government for even understanding what these policies will mean for the consumer, let alone trying to act in the consumer’s interest.
If I am wrong and the Labour party has an assessment for what the order will do to energy bills, perhaps the hon. Member can give us the numbers. I suspect that he will not be able to, but I will happily let him try.
I think what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the impact assessment makes it clear that consumers will face higher costs. The question I am putting to him is what that will mean for people’s energy bills. I suspect that is something that his constituents would be concerned about. Given that he does not have an answer, he should ask of his Government what it will mean for people’s energy bills.
I will make some progress, unless the hon. Member has an answer on energy bills.
It is absolutely extraordinary that the hon. Member does not accept that a higher price of carbon imposed on the production of goods in this country will raise costs. The cost of the carbon tax now accounts for—rather than pointing to the document, it is worth him listening to what I have to say—£100, or 12%, of someone’s electricity bill. That is clearly a cost that has been passed through. If Labour Members cannot understand that taxes on businesses get passed on to consumers, I am afraid I cannot help them in this debate. Make no mistake: this is a massive burden on consumers and businesses. Why are the Government doing this? Who benefits? The Treasury will see an extra £1.8 billion in tax revenue because it has doubled the carbon tax. Through this legislation, by reducing free allowances, it will rake in even more from ordinary families who are already struggling. That is in fact the entire point. The aim of the carbon tax is to gradually increase costs for British industry until businesses have no choice but to spend hundreds of millions of pounds they do not have at the moment to decarbonise their production, or shut down and move abroad. The fact that companies are choosing to do the latter means that there will be no reduction in global emissions because those businesses are just moving elsewhere. There will be fewer jobs in Britain, and more businesses in countries that have more polluting regimes—so more carbon in the atmosphere overall. Page 68 of the Minister’s impact assessment says that the carbon tax would be £25 lower by 2030 if the Government did not make the changes we are discussing today. As the Government have admitted, higher carbon taxes feed through to consumers in higher energy bills and higher costs. The Minister is asking us to approve legislation that, by his own assessment, will hurt industry, fuel inflation and make people poorer. When defending alignment, Ministers point to a Frontier Economics report that says that alignment will save £800 million, but that is supposedly saved over five years, and completely ignores the costs that higher carbon prices impose on the wider economy. To be clear, they are imposing a £5 billion tax rise on the economy every year, in the hope of saving just £160 million a year. That is incoherent to say the least. When I asked the Department how increasing the carbon tax affects consumers and businesses, its response was that the Government were “not able to comment on current prices and price movements” because they do not dictate the market. That is total nonsense. They can and should forecast what this will mean for prices, and how much our constituents will pay in extra costs on their bills. All I am asking is for Ministers to be open about the costs, admit they are imposing them on businesses and the public, make the argument as to why they are justified to do so and then let the public decide. I do not think that that is too much to ask. I ask the Minister these questions: what is his assessment of how many jobs will be lost because of higher carbon taxes? How many more domestic industries will be replaced by foreign imports, which we are already seeing in gas, steel, chemicals and refineries? Does he accept that reducing free allowances through this legislation will increase energy bills? His own impact assessment says that reducing free allowances will increase carbon prices by £25 per tonne, so will he publish an assessment of what that increased cost will add to people’s household bills? The world is getting more dangerous, and our raw industrial power is hard power. The Government should not be making our industry even less competitive with soaring carbon taxes, and making us more reliant on foreign imports, just as the world is becoming less safe. It is the wrong measure for the wrong time, and for those reasons we will oppose it today.
Originally, the choice was between coal and gas, but there is no coal in the system anymore; there is only gas. Even in the Minister’s clean power plans, gas is the dispatchable power in the system—there is no other choice; nothing else will keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Even in his plans, gas will set the price 50% of the time. He is needlessly imposing a tax that inflates that price of gas to the consumer when there is no other choice available. Will he at least come up with a forecast for what this will mean for energy bills and consumers in this country, considering that they do not have another choice, even in the Minister’s plans, apart from using gas power?
I appreciate the Minister’s graciousness in understanding our concern for industry. His priority is decarbonisation, but I am sure he will understand the very real risk that it is not the case that the UK is decarbonising, because those industries are not remaining in the UK and cutting their emissions; instead, UK businesses in those industries are going abroad, often to countries that have more polluting regimes than the UK—which has some of the cleanest electricity of anywhere in the world—including places that are still powered by coal. Rather than reducing global carbon emissions, we will actually increase emissions by moving our businesses from the UK to countries that have more polluting regimes. That will mean fewer jobs in Britain for more carbon in the atmosphere. Do the Government plan to monitor whether that is happening, and if it is, will the Minister change course? Surely he would agree that such a scenario would not count as decarbonising well; in fact, it would not be decarbonising the planet at all.
Will the Minister give way?
Hundreds of thousands of freeholders up and down the country who are locked in financial arrangements with unaccountable estate management firms will be very frustrated by this statement, because it focuses solely on leasehold. Will the Minister very clearly set out the next steps to tackle this enormous travesty, which involves fleecehold and estate management companies?
Order. It would be helpful if Members asked very short questions so that I can get them all in.
Order. I say very gently to the Minister that it was always open to him to ask for extra time, but we cannot find any record of him having done so. He has already got to 10 minutes, and he seems to have three more pages, so I will allow the Opposition spokespersons more time as well. This is an important statement, and I think that the hon. Member wants to finish, but it is very unfair to exceed the time by what I reckon will be 50%.
I call the shadow Minister.
This is another U-turn that does not go far enough, because as a result of the choices made by Labour, energy bills are up, taxes are up and confidence is down. That is corrosive, and it is having a particularly corrosive effect on cafés, restaurants, hotels and small retail outlets. Will the Minister announce broader support for those businesses to alleviate the pressure of business rates or, better still, scrap them once and for all?
I will speak to amendments 1 and 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. The Government and those of us supporting the amendments are trying to achieve the same outcome. The aim of the amendments is simple: to enable the Government to achieve their goal of raising billions in tax revenues from former non-doms—money that is needed to pay for public services, as the hon. Member for Burnley said earlier. The Government set out the policy intention to replace non-dom status with a UK residency tax to raise more tax from those with the greatest capacity to pay, while simplifying the system. They introduced the temporary repatriation facility—or, given that we like three-letter acronyms, the TRF—as the central part of that strategy. It is designed to encourage people to remain in the UK, to come to the UK and invest in the UK, and to bring historically offshore capital into the UK tax net. The TRF offers a reduced rate of taxation of 12% on all non-UK assets brought into the country as an incentive to do just that. We all want the same thing: we want the TRF to work, because if it does not, the money does not come here and the Exchequer and the public lose. The Government are relying on the reforms to raise very substantial sums—about £34 billion overall. The concern I express is not ideological or about the tax rate; it is about legal certainty and deliverability. The problem is that a number of the wealthiest people have left the country, and many more are doing so as we debate these amendments. Why? Odd as it may seem, it is not because they are unwilling to pay more tax; it is because of the legal uncertainty in the Bill as drafted. Using the TRF as set out in the Bill exposes people to serious legal uncertainty. First, they are subject to double taxation through double counting of the same economic value. Secondly, they are vulnerable to retrospective taxation. Thirdly, they face allegations of tax avoidance simply for using a scheme that Parliament itself has created. Fourthly, they expose themselves and their families to potentially decade-long investigations into arrangements that were entirely lawful at the time they were entered into. That is why they are watching this Bill proceed with their bags packed, waiting to see if it will fix the problems. The advisers of such people are warning them to leave, but I know that the Government’s intention is not to drive them away. We need their taxes, fairly paid, to fund the renewal of our public services. That is why amendments 1 and 2 were tabled, in a constructive spirit of co-operation, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned. Amendment 1 would stop double counting; and amendment 2 would ensure that retrospective and unfair action does not continue. Had amendment 49, which goes further, been selected for debate, I would have spoken to it as well, but I will resist doing so because it has not been selected. Amendments 1 and 2 would provide the needed certainty and make the TRF usable in practice, not just in theory. I hope that the Minister can give me some assurance that the Government recognise some of the technical problems highlighted by the amendments and intend to resolve them. I noted earlier that the Minister rejected amendments 1 and 2, giving a brief reason why, but given the representations, certainly by the Opposition, a more detailed response as to why the amendments have been rejected by the Government would be worthwhile. Much careful work has gone into the construction of amendments 1 and 2. Again in the spirit of co-operation, I am sure that Conservative Members would be happy to provide input to the Minister and officials as they consider how best to address the issues. With that, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. He is making a thoughtful and important speech. He has spoken eloquently about the cumulative development in both our constituencies, which is putting central Bedfordshire and Bedford borough under significant strain from a planning perspective. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to support our local authorities, so that we think holistically about these developments and ensure that our landscapes are protected, our local communities are listened to, and that we secure the agricultural land that we need for future food security? The reason we have so many farmers in Bedfordshire is because we have fantastic agricultural land. Would it not be a waste to build on all that land, and in the case of East Park Energy, to do so on the altar of net zero?
My hon. Friend is making an important speech that reflects what we see in my constituency, where more than 15,000 premises are still without acceptable broadband speeds. I wrote to the Minister responsible before Christmas, and when they finally responded to my letter, there was no answer for the nearly 10,000 premises from Willington to Delamere Park and beyond that are unlikely to be covered by a new framework contract. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must consider either reopening the voucher scheme or providing an answer on how those homes and businesses will get the broadband speeds they need for today’s digital world?
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. He is making an important point about the previous Government’s achievements and strategies in this policy area. Since then, communities in Cheshire and Warrington have not seen a single new publicly delivered broadband connection in more than two years. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government must move faster on this important issue?
It is vital that we address this issue to ensure that UK-trained doctors are prioritised for vacancies over international applicants—the Secretary of State is making important points about that. We need those places to be opened up for UK medics immediately, so will he explain why the Bill will not come into force immediately after Royal Assent but instead includes provision for it to come into force “on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”?
Just one pure technology company is now listed on the FTSE 100 and Budget measures, such as cutting venture capital trust tax relief, discourage companies from listing on the UK exchanges. Why are the Government driving away growth and investment?
On this Government’s watch, in the west midlands we now face a £41 million black hole, which we are told will lead to a reduction in policing numbers. Under these new reforms, how will the Home Secretary ensure we see a net increase in the west midlands, particularly in my constituency?
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those words. Will he associate himself with the Canadian, Danish, French, Australian and New Zealand armed forces, and those from many other countries around the world, who served alongside us in that NATO operation? They stood by us, even though article 5 does not apply to Australia or New Zealand, and lost troops in combat, yet I did not hear an apology for them.
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate. Unusually, I pay tribute to the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), who could be sporting the same colours as me. As a fellow veteran from the finest corps in the country, she will no doubt have many contributions of her own to make. Today is Australia Day and India’s Republic Day. Given that we are talking about the armed forces, it is worth remembering that over the last 100 years it has been very unusual for us to have gone to war without very close allies by our side. In fact, the two largest volunteer armies in the world were the Indian army in the first world war and the Indian army in the second world war.