5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Mr Speaker, it is on their own website. But I will turn to another Government blunder: taxpayer-funded schemes to bribe the public into buying something that they do not want, which, we now learn, will financially hammer people for doing what the Government told them to do in the first place. Is it not time to let people choose what they want to drive, before electric becomes the new diesel?
I am not sure it helps the Home Secretary’s cause for me to say that I have a great deal of respect for her and that I thought her interventions this week were very important, particularly those pointed towards members of her party on the left who will make the cause they choose to champion more difficult if the system as a whole is not brought under control. The people who support asylum and refugee processes and want them to be there in future need the system to be brought under control. My sincere question relates to what I would describe as tinkering around the edges of the human rights laws. The Home Secretary must know that whatever she does to clarify the fringes of the rulings the ECHR has made over the years, they have created a case law that forces our judges to rule in favour of spurious claims. She cannot change that; those rulings are those rulings. Unless we are willing at the very least to have a derogation from some elements of the Court’s decisions, how does she think we can override those well-established rulings which give enormous amounts of rights to people when they are making their asylum claims?
As always, I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She has had a busy week. I wonder whether this burst of hyperactivity has anything to do with her leadership bid. As her shadow, I will say this: I am rooting for her in her tussle with the Health Secretary as to who gets to replace the Prime Minister, although I fear my endorsement may not be entirely helpful to her! Immigration under successive Governments has been far too high. That has included illegal immigration across the channel, which has surged since the general election, with 10,000 illegal immigrants crossing just in the 75 days that the Home Secretary has been in post. Last year—the first year of a Labour Government—there were a record number of new asylum claims. The number of illegal immigrants accommodated in hotels has gone up under this Labour Government, even though they promised they would reduce numbers. Besides illegal immigration, on which this Government are so clearly failing, legal migration has been far too high, too, absorbing the equivalent of half the new housing supply in recent years. Allowing mass low-skilled migration is bad for the economy, not least when we have 9.5 million working-age people out of work. Mass low- skilled migration without integration has placed all kinds of pressures on society, not least because there are a million people here who do not speak English properly or at all and 10,000 foreign citizens in prison. Where I suspect we and the Government agree is that very limited, high-skilled migration is a good thing, but the days of mass, low-skilled migration must come to an end. There is much in this statement that I support, not least because so much of it is so familiar. The idea of a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed in amendments to the Government’s Bill around nine months ago. Inexplicably, the Labour party voted against those measures, and now they have adopted them. We also proposed removing benefits from foreign citizens, including those on ILR who do not have British citizenship, and this consultation document now looks at doing the same thing. I am delighted to see that the Home Secretary, upon arrival at 2 Marsham Street, got out her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies. I have one or two detailed and specific questions, which I ask in a spirit of constructiveness, given that the Home Secretary has adopted so many Conservative policies. Importantly, she said that these policies on ILR qualification would apply to those people here already. She is absolutely right to say that, and I support it. She mentions transitional arrangements. I just urge her to be cautious about those, lest they create loopholes. Can she give the House an estimate as to when these new measures will be implemented? I think the previous rules around legal migration took effect in January 2021, so the people who arrived under them will become eligible under present ILR rules from January 2026—just a few weeks’ time. When will these changes be implemented? I hope it is as soon as possible. The Home Secretary also says that to qualify for ILR at 10 years, people will need to have made national insurance contributions. I have tried to get through the consultation document in the past half hour, and I think I am right in saying that the qualifying threshold is to have earned £12,570 for a period of three years. She can correct me if I have got that wrong, but that strikes me as a very low level of earnings—some £12,500 for three years would not represent a net economic contribution to this country—and I urge her seriously to consider setting the threshold a great deal higher. The Home Secretary also mentions the possibility of volunteering meaning that people get ILR at five years, rather than 10. We know how people game the system when it comes to immigration, such as by pretending to convert to Christianity to get asylum. I urge her to draft those rules carefully and to be extremely cautious, lest she creates some loopholes. Will the Home Secretary consider adopting one last Conservative policy, since she appears so enthusiastic about them, by introducing a binding cap on legal migration? It could be voted for by Parliament each year so that this House can democratically decide the level of inward migration. She has adopted so many of our other policies, and I strongly urge her to adopt that last one too.
13. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of support for motorists.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the introduction of a pay-per-mile charge for motorists in next week’s Budget would disproportionately impact rural constituencies such as mine, because people are more reliant on cars to get about, and represent yet another slap in the face from this Government for the countryside and for motorists?
In the light of this recent escalation, what specific and immediate steps is the Minister taking to ensure that UK armed forces are equipped both to protect critical underwater infrastructure and to respond rapidly and effectively to direct threats from Russia and others?
I will now announce the result of yesterday’s deferred Division on the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 376 and the Noes were 16, so the Ayes have it. [The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
I thank the Minister for his responses. I will allow a few minutes for the Front Benches to swap over, during which time it might be helpful to remind Members that in an urgent question, the questioner gets two minutes, the Minister gets three minutes to respond, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman gets one minute. Any Member posing a question that is approaching one minute in length might think about reducing the length of their question.
I thank the Minister for her short, sharp answers—perhaps a masterclass for what is to follow. Business questions will run for an hour and no more.
As I suspect he has an important question on Scottish football, I call Richard Baker.
The key issue is that making a decision about whether someone goes into a secluded area away from other prisoners is a judgment call. What assessment has the Minister made of the implications of the judgment on what will happen to terrorists who should be separated from other prisoners?
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for 4 December in the Chamber. I understand that the House may be suspended for a period on that day because of a state visit, so will he give consideration to protected time for those two very heavily subscribed debates? Will he also indicate whether we will get time in the Chamber on 11 December? Our backlog of debates is such that if we had every Thursday between now and the Easter recess, we could fill every single one. I note that the House rose very early yesterday. If the Government are having a problem with business, we can always put on debates to allow colleagues from the Back Benches to debate what they wish to debate in Government time. If we are given Thursday 18 December, it will be the traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate for Christmas. Our forthcoming business in Westminster Hall is as follows. On Tuesday 25 November, there will be a debate on the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes. On Thursday 27 November, because of the Budget debate in the main Chamber, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Business and Trade Committee, followed by debates on the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging and on protecting children from domestic abuse. On 2 December, there will be a debate on the adequacy of funding to support homeless people, and on 4 December, there will be a debate on a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan, followed by a debate on seafarers’ welfare. Today is the 80th anniversary of the start of the Nuremberg trials. Earlier this week we had a very good briefing at the all-party parliamentary group for the Holocaust memorial and education centre from Adam Wagner, a renowned human rights lawyer. Twenty-four Nazis were put on trial, and the trial lasted 11 months. At the end of it, 22 of them were sentenced to either very long prison sentences or death; amazingly enough, two were acquitted. It would be very helpful if we could have a statement from the Education Secretary on incorporating the business of the Nuremberg trials into the national curriculum, because this was the first time that human rights law started to come to the fore, particularly on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Could the Leader of the House arrange for that to happen?
Everyone in this House should be concerned by the increase in Russian sub-threshold activity, and this certainly is not the first time we have found ourselves in this House discussing the Yantar specifically. The use of lasers against an operational P-8 very much pushes the boundaries of what we could consider to be sub-threshold activity. I want to ask the Minister a question that is very much within his bailiwick. I do not expect him to be able to comment on whether we have deployed any elements of the Fleet Contingency Troop to HMS Somerset, which is tracking the Yantar, but under what circumstances and geographically whereabouts within our waters would the Yantar need to be in order for us to apply some maritime interdiction via the Fleet Contingency Troop?
T4. The Secretary of State will know, because I have raised it so many times, about the appalling situation at the Gallows Corner A12-A127 junction. It is affecting everybody on the east side of London and well into Essex, including all my constituents. It is total incompetence by Transport for London and the Mayor of London. Will the Secretary of State take charge of the situation, overriding the Mayor of London and TfL, and ensure that this infrastructure project is completed no later than spring 2026? It has been delayed for six months already.
Animal lovers across the country— most especially Katie Amess, the daughter of our late dear friend, who is continuing the battle for animal welfare across the country—are raising concerns that after the seven-day statutory period, many healthy dogs are not being offered for adoption and are instead euthanised without transparency. One shelter that receives dogs from several councils lists only a handful that are available for rehoming despite its far higher intake figures. That lack of accountability is deeply troubling. Will the Leader of the House make time for Members to examine whether stronger reporting requirements and safeguards are needed to protect those animals, and may we have a debate on the welfare of stray dogs transferred by local authorities to contracted shelters?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am sure it will delight the Committee to know that I do not intend to detain us for too long. [Interruption.] I always get a cheer when I say that. I would like to begin by saying that I do not see anything particularly contentious in this. The Minister rightly points out that these are technical changes that bring the Down Syndrome Act into line with the reforms introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022, in particular the replacement of CCGs with ICBs and the renaming of the NHS Commissioning Board as NHS England. However, it is worth questioning the Government on the longer-term stability of these changes. As hon. Members will know, the Government have stated their intention to abolish NHS England by April 2027. That process has already been delayed, reportedly due to uncertainty over who will meet the redundancy costs for staff within those organisations. If that abolishment proceeds, a new health Bill will be required. At present, we do not know when that Bill will be brought forward or what it will contain. It is therefore entirely possible that the statutory references being updated today will need to be amended again in the near future. I also note that there is no statutory review clause in this instrument. While that may be understandable given the technical nature of the changes, it adds to concerns that further legislative changes may not be properly anticipated or subject to adequate scrutiny in good time. While I support these draft regulations, I urge the Minister to clarify what transitional arrangements are being considered for the functions currently held by NHS England and the integrated care boards. That is especially important, as he rightly pointed out, for the consistency of support that we all want to see in the context of the Down Syndrome Act. We must ensure that people with Down’s syndrome are not adversely affected by any ongoing organisational changes within the health system. The Minister mentioned some of the updates to the Down Syndrome Act. Perhaps he could update us further on any other actions that are ongoing. How many still need to be done? In addition, I note that the Act seems to require the Secretary of State to publish guidance, on which the Government have just launched a consultation. One of the criticisms of the Act at the time was that it is specific to Down’s syndrome. Although I obviously welcome that focus, others face similar disabilities and challenges. How might the Government support them? Finally, it looks like people can respond to the guidance only online. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he is confident that those who are digitally excluded will not be prevented from taking part in this important consultation?
May I appeal to the Minister to help us in one way? Although this is a devolved matter, it is possible in the internet age very easily to make charitable donations, so could she investigate whether there is a reliable local charity to which people across the country can make donations? Could she perhaps circulate the details of that after this urgent question?
It is a privilege to speak under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for calling this debate. I would like to use my short time to tell the story of a young man who made me understand the tragedy of ME six years ago. He was a very promising first-year student at Durham University called Tom. He was on track to get a first in maths. He was a big hockey player, but in his second year, he started struggling, first to walk upstairs and to climb hills, and eventually he found that he could not wash himself, eat by himself or even read. Then, to his enormous frustration, he dropped out in his third year. When all his friends were starting a new life with their first job, he had to stay at home and go through the nightmare of first trying to get a diagnosis and get someone to agree that he had a problem, and then trying to get treatment for it. Tom felt that he was going in circles: doctors were not really persuaded and he was not getting any answers. He was very lucky because he had two remarkable parents, Alex and Denise, who could afford to go to America. In fact, they moved to America and they got him enrolled on clinical trials. This story has a positive ending, because six years on, he is doing incredibly well. He is actually thriving; he has a job and a partner, and his life is back on track—except, sadly, in America rather than here. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, there are 400,000 people with ME or with long covid symptoms that are like severe ME. For some of them, it is already too late. Maeve Boothby O’Neill and Sarah Lewis tragically lost their lives, and coroners issued prevention of future deaths notices.
I thank the hon. Lady for talking about that very sad case. I actually think that the NHS is better than it was because of long covid. The real cause for hope is Edinburgh University’s DecodeME study, which the chief executive of Action for ME, Sonya Chowdhury, described to me as being like a treasure hunt map with eight crosses where there is a genetic code that matches ME, but where we then have to go and dig up that treasure. That is what is now waiting to happen, and why funding is so important. Ultimately, with the quality of research in this country, there should be no need for anyone to have to go to the United States or Germany for their treatment. During the pandemic, more lives were saved through treatments and vaccines discovered in this country than any other country in the world. We have amazing research happening here. My plea to the Government is this: the last Government started the process by ignoring some of the scepticism in the medical community about whether ME was really a serious condition. It would be fantastic, and it would give so much hope, if this Government could now finish the job and invest in research that will transform the lives of so many people like Tom.
Many thousands of our brave troops served in Northern Ireland, and many gave their lives for peace and for our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that they deserve a permanent memorial, not for some of them to be prosecuted?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome today’s debate. Plymouth and the surrounding area boast some of the finest examples of British advanced manufacturing. Babcock refits the Royal Navy’s frigates, maintains our nuclear deterrent and assembles the Supacat Jackal armoured vehicles at His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport. Today, Helsing is opening a resilience factory in my constituency, manufacturing autonomous underwater gliders to protect critical infrastructure. The date was supposed to be last week, so I went to visit. Unfortunately, I am here for this debate today rather than there for the official opening today, but it is an exciting opportunity for my constituency of South West Devon and Plymouth as a whole. The company was attracted to the city because of its easy access to deep water for testing and sea trials of marine autonomy. For similar reasons, Thales at Turnchapel Wharf is delivering the first end-to-end autonomous maritime mine-hunting system to the Royal Navy. Plymouth’s industry is not just defence companies equipping the men and women in uniform with world-class kit. Mars Wrigley, a company I visited last month, manufactures its chewing gum in Plymouth. Alderman Tooling, another advanced manufacturer in Plympton in my constituency, is a metal fabrication company that produces a range of products, including metal bed feet, bus handrails and displays for museums and fashion retailers. Plessey Semiconductors, Demon Pressure Washers and Princess Yachts are all significant to South West Devon, and many other businesses manufacture in neighbouring Plymouth constituencies. It should therefore come as no surprise that Plymouth wears the crown as the south-west’s pre-eminent manufacturing city, ranking ninth across the UK. This is within the south-west region, which has the third highest proportion of advanced manufacturing jobs in the country, employing 86,500 people. Indeed, the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group represents over 50 local businesses right across the city, employing almost 5,500 people. With the current focus on the defence sector across the country and in Plymouth, it is easy to just focus on the prime companies: Babcock, BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. However, it is important to also recognise the immense contribution of small and medium-sized businesses to the advanced manufacturing sector—both the defence supply chain and the wider manufacturing sector that populates Plymouth and the surrounding area. Plymouth’s regeneration is being led by manufacturers, small and large, in our city. Our city’s future success is tied to theirs. The city’s offer is impressive and often overlooked. Our advanced manufacturing sector contributes hundreds of millions of pounds of GVA to the local economy and the country as a whole. Defence in the south-west adds £3.6 billion of GVA, with 43,500 jobs. However, it is well documented that Plymouth has a skills shortage. This in turn risks local growth, social cohesion and cost increases to the defence programme. To unlock Plymouth’s potential, we must meet those challenges head-on. Recent data has highlighted that as many apprenticeships are needed by local SMEs as by defence primes—something we must be alive to as we promote our manufacturing sector and the skilled employees required. That is especially the case since high wage inflation—something already mentioned—brought about by the demands from the defence primes can impact those critical SMEs that also provide significant numbers of jobs and need to grow their skilled workforce, too. We are not alone in this reality in the south-west. Recent Transport Committee hearings that I was part of have focused on the skills shortage in transport manufacturing, too. We often hear about welding, but ultimately those welders are needed right across the country in a whole range of jobs. It is very important we ensure that that supply and demand match each other. I am particularly interested to hear how the Minister can address that, because I sit in those meetings hearing about the need for welders, and I am not convinced that there are enough young people out there to fill those jobs, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. The need for a laser focus on skills is crucial, and a reality check is needed on the numbers required across all manufacturing sectors to ensure we tackle the demand effectively. Although I welcome the Government’s defence spending and commitment to Plymouth, I am watching to ensure that their investment also addresses the broader systemic challenges I outlined facing Plymouth’s advanced manufacturing sector. Labour has pursued policies that actively harm our SMEs. The jobs tax is costing small businesses £615 more a year per employee, and the Employment Rights Bill is tying them up in red tape. I hope that the Chancellor is taking a second look at the harm that those policies are causing to small businesses ahead of the Budget next week. Plymouth is an exciting place to set up a business, with the Plymouth and South Devon freeport providing incentives and a skilled workforce that is growing every day, even with the challenges I have mentioned, all in the most beautiful place in the country to live. It is clearly the place to be to invest and to seek those jobs. My hope is that the Government will help and not hinder the city’s potential.
I am not going to do that. Many businesspeople across my constituency have contacted me to stress how damaging the Bill will be. It seems to be more of an ideological issue on which Opposition Members differ. The red tape, particularly around things like zero-hours contracts, will have a massive impact, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
I mentioned skills as a significant challenge in the defence sector and the additional manufacturing. We have five defence technical excellence colleges opening by the end of next year. How well connected is the Minister’s Department with the Department for Education? Does he have any knowledge of when those colleges will be announced? They are surely a key part of what the Government hope to achieve with defence skills, but they will also be important for regions such as the south-west.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this critical debate, which is very timely, given the forthcoming Budget. I acknowledge the very pertinent point that he made about the importance of apprenticeships for the specialist sector more broadly. The specialist manufacturing sector is one of those quiet national assets that rarely make front-page news but keep our economy alive. Its contribution to the UK is not abstract but is counted in highly skilled jobs, export strength and clusters of high-value industry. According to the latest figures, advanced manufacturing now accounts for more than 900,000 jobs across the UK and contributes more than £90 billion in gross value added to the economy. I am pleased that the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the reality of advanced manufacturing’s value, which is spread across the country. I welcome the emphasis that they are placing on specialist manufacturing, as it is clear that the industry offers Britain a comparative advantage in our trade with the rest of the world. The sector gives our communities certainty. I see that in my constituency, where we host a range of high-value specialist manufacturers whose work speaks directly to the issues raised in this debate. One such firm is Respirex International, a world-leading manufacturer of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protective equipment, including gas-tight suits, respirators and chemically protective boots. Its products are not only exported worldwide, but used by emergency services and pharmaceutical and nuclear facilities across the UK, protecting lives in some of the most hazardous environments imaginable. We are also home to Risbridger Ltd, established in 1922—an engineering company producing advanced components for aircraft servicing and petrochemical infrastructure. It contributes directly to aerospace and energy supply chains. That is exactly the kind of innovative, precision-focused industrial capability that we should champion as part of Britain’s economic future. In Reigate and across our country, specialist manufacturing has always pulled in long-term capital because it deals in long-term capability. In 2025, the sector counted some 2,700 active companies, and the Government aim to increase annual business investment from £21 billion to £39 billion by 2035. That ambition matters, because regions such as the north-west already generate £14.4 billion in advanced manufacturing GVA. The west midlands generates £11.8 billion and the south-west generates £10.4 billion. Those are not marginal numbers; they are proof that British engineering remains globally competitive when it is backed properly. Defence manufacturing is a genuine force multiplier. The Ministry of Defence estimates that the sector supports 200,000 jobs, with 70% of spending flowing to areas outside London and the south-east. Indeed, aerospace and defence manufacturing are particularly strong drivers of regional growth. Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland has grown more than four times faster than the UK average, while areas such as north Wales remain world renowned for aeroplane wing production. In Glasgow, specialist shipbuilding and satellite technology lead the charge. Woven together in often complex supply chains, the specialist manufacturing sector demonstrates how fragile business ecosystems can be and why they need the Government’s support. But I must say, with deep regret, that the sector has received nothing of the kind, despite the Government’s lengthy blueprint earlier this year, which rightly identified eight key sectors as strategic priorities: advanced materials, agritech, aerospace, automotive, batteries, space, defence and maritime capabilities. But of course a strategy is only as good as its implementation, and manufacturers are seeing not policy support but punitive tax hikes, cost pressure and legislative risk. As the hon. Member for Calder Valley and many others said, it would be fantastic if we used more British parts in the UK, but we do not because of the cost. To address that, we must bring energy prices and tax down; warm words in this Chamber will not do it. Since their very first Budget, the Government have inflicted a barrage of attacks on manufacturing businesses. The spiralling uncertainty pouring out under the door of No. 11 is damaging the confidence of every business, but especially the specialist manufacturing sector, and the warning lights are flashing. Make UK reports that manufacturers’ operating costs have risen sharply, driven by energy prices, the Chancellor’s job tax and uncertainty around business taxation: 68% said that costs rose faster than expected, and more than half froze recruitment as a result. If specialist manufacturers are to keep delivering regional growth, energy competitiveness and a stable tax policy are not luxuries; they are prerequisites. Let us consider the UK’s industrial electricity prices, which are now estimated to be 40% to 50% higher than the International Energy Agency median for comparable industrial nations. Make UK has gone as far as to call energy costs an “existential threat” to many specialist firms. The consequences are already here. UK steel and chemicals output has dropped 35% compared with 2021 levels, while imports of those same materials are rising. Just yesterday, we heard that ExxonMobil is closing its plastics refinery in Mossmorran. Four hundred jobs are now at risk because of what the company called the “current economic and policy environment”. I am confident that in a moment the Minister will rise to spin away any criticism, but this is indefensible. The reality is that no Government that are serious about the future of advanced manufacturing in Britain would have imposed a jobs tax and changes to national insurance thresholds that hurt hardest those who employ the most. No Government who care about British advanced manufacturing firms and British workers would ignore energy costs that are four times higher than those of our competitors. No Government who believe in the future of our advanced manufacturing industry would introduce a 330-page unemployment rights Bill with job-destroying, hiring-freezing measures from cover to cover. No Prime Minister who wants to kick-start economic growth would look advanced manufacturing business in the eye and say that he has a done deal with the United States and then leave the industry in the dark as tariffs on items such as pharmaceuticals remain for months afterwards. And no Government who say they want to build skills would abolish level 7 apprenticeships. Just as night follows day, the Government will talk big on business, but their actions show that much of it is merely empty rhetoric. Our specialist manufacturing sector deserves better; it deserves a Government who stand with them, and leadership that understands that when specialist manufacturing succeeds, Britain succeeds. We have in this country the expertise, the heritage and the industrial DNA to compete and excel, but the specialist manufacturing sector will not survive on pride alone. It needs certainty, cost stability and a Government who truly get what it means to make things. We urgently need to reclaim our status as the nation that builds, and the best way to start is by listening to those firms that still do so.
I associate Conservative Members with the remarks the Prime Minister made about James Elliot. Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are the first Government in history to float an increase in income tax rates, only to then U-turn on it—all after the actual Budget?
The Prime Minister says that the Budget is next week, but we read all about it in the papers. This is the first Budget to unravel before it has even been delivered. I am afraid that the Chancellor’s cluelessness is damaging the economy now. The Prime Minister needs to end this shambles, so can he confirm today that he will not break another promise by freezing income tax thresholds?
It is quite clear that the Government are going to freeze thresholds; we did not get a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but this is really important. In her Budget speech last year, the Chancellor said: “I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] Why was freezing thresholds a breach of the manifesto last year, but not this year?
The Prime Minister talks about speculation. The only people who have been speculating are his Government, every single day for the last three months. He mentioned inflation in his last answer; inflation has nearly doubled since Labour came into office. He wants a round of applause because it has come down a little bit, but I will remind him that food inflation is up to 4.9%. That is making life miserable for all of those people out there.
I was a Treasury Minister at the height of the pandemic, and we cleaned up that mess. Perhaps the Prime Minister will clean up some of his own mess. I will repeat what the Chancellor said, because it is clear that the whole Labour Front-Bench team have forgotten: “I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] That, however, is what Labour is planning to do next week. All this speculation is having real-world consequences. Just this morning, the UK chair of ExxonMobil said: “The Government needs to understand that the whole industrial base of the UK is at risk unless they wake up and realise the damage their economic policies are doing.” Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loss of UK industry is the price that the country has to pay for having a clueless Chancellor?
On energy policy, what we are doing is listening to industry. [Interruption.]
Just this morning, we heard from the chair of one of our largest energy companies. Last week, I had a roundtable with energy companies, and what they had to say about this Prime Minister and his Energy Secretary is unprintable. They are absolutely furious. Our oil and gas industry is dying, and the Prime Minister is standing there, saying he has had meetings. People out there are struggling and the Budget chaos is causing real anxiety. People are not buying houses, businesses are not hiring and they are cancelling investment decisions. Two weeks ago, the Chancellor called a ridiculous press conference to blame everyone else for her having to raise income tax, then last week she U-turned on her own U-turn. We can see that they are instead planning to freeze income tax thresholds, which she said last year would be a breach of their manifesto. They are making it up as they go along. Does the country not deserve better than government by guesswork?
Although I am not a Welsh MP, I would like to express my sympathies for what the people of Monmouthshire are going through. In 2014, when I was the Armed Forces Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I spent weeks in Cobra meetings helping to co-ordinate military assistance in response to the severe flooding in the west country, particularly on the Somerset levels. Can I offer a suggestion? We all hope that this will not happen again, and certainly not quickly, but if there are further named storms, has the Minister or the First Minister considered speaking to the Ministry of Defence about military aid to the civil authorities—so-called MACA arrangements? We learned in 2014 that there are some specialist units, such as the Royal Marines or the Royal Engineers, who have capabilities to offer in these circumstances that can really make a difference to local people. Is that something that she and the First Minister might at least be prepared to consider?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if she will make a statement on the recent severe flooding impacting Monmouthshire and what support will be made available for those affected.
This weekend, tragic and heart-wrenching floods affected families and their loved ones, resulting in evacuation from their properties in Monmouth after the River Monnow burst its banks. That, in turn, has blighted businesses with devastating consequences. This horrific experience also hit hard nearby areas, including Abergavenny and Skenfrith village. There are desperate families and business owners across Monmouthshire who have lost their homes and their livelihoods. They have literally lost everything, with Christmas looming—a key time also for hospitality. I thank the emergency services and all the volunteers, including many local councillors and Peter Fox, Member of the Senedd. They have done fantastic work around the clock to assist, safeguard and do what they can to help and support those impacted. It is now vital that, without any delay, the necessary support reaches every single person who has been affected by these devastating floods, and that their longer term needs are also met. Local people report that they do not have any clarity, answers or insight on what to expect, beyond initial rescue and community kindness. They have been told that discussions are ongoing. The First Minister outlined this week in the Senedd some support and the Prime Minister also offered support to Monmouthshire. Will the Minister provide details on what exactly that means, practically, on the ground in the coming weeks? Will the Minister outline a timeframe for when support will reach the people of Monmouthshire and what precisely it will entail? It is reported that some insurance companies will not pay, as they meet only storm damage, not flood damage. Locals want urgent resources, not endless form-filling for the Senedd. They need urgent help now and for it to be fast-tracked, they say, via the council. Finally, does the Minister agree that time is of the essence in answering those vital questions, to ensure that the anxieties of residents and businesses do not worsen?
I rise on behalf of the 279 petitioners from Crawley Down in my constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages, and the further 370 who have signed the petition online. I present the petition especially on behalf of Joy, an elderly constituent who risks being cut off and isolated should this unwanted and unwarranted development take place. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of East Grinstead and Uckfield, Declares that the proposal to potentially demolish the existing dwellings in Woodlands Close and to create a significant new access road serving potentially 48 additional homes is inappropriate and would cause significant harm to the wider local community; further declares that the scale of the proposed development is out of keeping with the surrounding area, that residents would be subjected to noise and disruption, that the affordable housing mix of the proposed development is inadequate, that Woodlands Close could not accommodate the volume of traffic that would arise from the development, that the development would risk harming the heritage asset of Grade II listed Burleigh Cottage and the natural environment, and that public consultation regarding this proposal was inadequate and has not taken into account significant flooding risks and topography. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Mid Sussex District Council to withhold planning permission for this development to protect the wider local community in Crawley Down and in particular any homes impacted by this significant road layout change which will isolate one dwelling in particular. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003136]
I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. His Majesty’s official Opposition support them. Having, as the Minister said, concluded one agreement and very much supporting the second one, which really continues the international trade policy and trend of the previous Government, we certainly will not be dividing the Committee, but perhaps he can just set out the answers to a few questions about some details in the regulations. If we look at the particular regulation that underpins a lot of the regulation set out here, it generally appears quite technical, particularly in relation to definitions and cross-references. Will the Minister therefore confirm that these measures do not constitute a material policy shift and that the Government have assessed that the changes do not create any unintended consequences for contracting authorities or potential bidders? On potential bidders, how do the Government intend any changes within the regulations to be communicated to suppliers and potential suppliers based in the UK? When will any updated guidance following from the regulations be published? We are particularly concerned about any impact—not that we expect there to be any dramatic impact—on small and medium-sized enterprises or small employers. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that SMEs and microbusinesses in particular can navigate without an increased administrative burden any transition in the procurement systems covered by the regulations? Have stakeholders been consulted on whether further clarity is required, particularly for SMEs, charities and the voluntary sector suppliers that may be affected? The regulations are technical, but of course they are important for the integrity of the procurement system, so clarity and consistency remain essential both for contracting authorities and for the many businesses—especially smaller suppliers—that rely on predictable and understandable rules. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister’s responses and to ensuring that these amendments support a smooth and proportionate transition to the new procurement regime as it relates to Kazakhstan and Iraq. There is little further for me to say. We will be supporting the regulations.
Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol says that where we experience diversion of trade, we may take unilateral action. The Secretary of State will be well aware that three reports in the past month have noticed significant trade diversion affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will he be clear with the House about just how much trade diversion he is willing to stomach before he uses the powers he has under article 16?
Q13. Everyone who cares about media independence and freedom will be relieved that RedBird has recognised that it cannot run The Telegraph, but there are serious concerns that it will burden the paper with unsustainable debt if the title is sold for less than half a billion pounds. Will the Prime Minister step in to prevent this from happening and enable a sale, at a lower price if necessary, without this toxic debt burden?
The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their work on and scrutiny of this Bill. I would like to thank my colleagues Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, as well as numerous members of the other place, including Lord Jackson, for their work. The subject of the Bill is extremely important to this country and its future. I am afraid the reality is that, under this Labour Government, illegal immigration has got much, much worse. We are in the grip of an immigration crisis. Small boat crossings have surged. They are up 55% against the same period before the election. In the nine months before the election, the number of people in hotels had gone down by 47%, but since this Government came to power, it has gone up. This country is our home; it is not a hotel. We need stronger borders to make sure that those who come to our country share our values, contribute to society, and are not simply a drain on the resources that taxpayers fund. The Bill will remove powers that allow us to detain and deport people who arrive here illegally. It will remove powers that allow us to mandate scientific age tests for those who arrive here illegally claiming to be children. It will allow people who break into our country illegally to become British citizens. Those who break into our country should not be allowed to stay. This week, the Home Secretary announced a new plan, which she says will tackle the immigration crisis. Lords amendment 37 would ensure transparent data on one of the key contributors to the high immigration that the Government say that they want to reduce. Transparency matters for public trust and accountability. Opposition to the amendment is completely at odds with the Home Secretary’s rhetoric, and the action that she promised us earlier this week. Once again, the Bill has been nowhere near as ambitious or radical as it needs to be to stop dangerous crossings in their tracks. The Government should be using every tool available to control immigration and make our country safer.
Is the Minister aware that in the nine months up to the election, the number of people in hotels fell by 47%? It has now gone up, and the number of people arriving in this country has gone up by 55%, while the number of those arriving in small boats and being removed has gone down. It is just not on—it is a car crash.