5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill

   We spent a good amount of time debating that issue in Committee. “Use it or lose it” planning consent is one option. Application of council tax at different stages of delivery is another. We could also take a different approach to section 106, to the community infrastructure levy or to the way that local authorities interact with the housing market. All those measures that we either considered in government or have been debating—none of which has been taken up —have the potential to ensure that more of the homes that have planning consent get delivered.

   Hansard source
2. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill

   My right hon. Friend tempts me to fast-forward to a point that will arise later on. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the end of her Budget statement last year that she was wiping the slate clean, and from here on in it was on them, she was absolutely right. If we look at the impact that the measures taken have had on the deliverability of housing and infrastructure, and the rising costs of government driven by the colossal borrowing spree that has been embarked upon by this Chancellor, there is no question. A Government who have borrowed £100 billion this financial year alone are not in a position to talk about a businesslike approach to delivering housing and infrastructure. The Opposition share the concern that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) set out in her intervention, highlighted in Lords amendment 1. Ongoing accountability is crucial. We know there will be trade-offs, whether it is on Heathrow—an issue that affects her constituents and mine—or High Speed 2, which has been very much debated, the delivery of new cross-Thames infrastructure to the east of London, new ports, new airports or new roads. There is a significant parliamentary interest in all those issues, and that process provides an opportunity to explain to the public where those trade-offs sit. On heritage sites and reservoirs, the Lords have done some excellent work. I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for their willingness to embrace the debate about electric vehicle charging, and I know noble Lords have been extremely keen to support the work being done to deliver that net zero agenda. However, so many elements of the Bill incorporate a tendency to centralisation. The lack of community-level accountability and lack of ability for local residents to have their say about what is happening in their area—for example, on assets of community value—remains a fundamental concern. If we want those communities to embrace development and new homes, they need to be able to see the benefits and opportunities that a development will bring to their lives. Another issue covered in the Lords amendments is chalk streams. I declare for the record that the River Colne, which borders my constituency, is a chalk stream, the majority of which are in southern England. Given the work done by my party in government, we are determined to ensure that there is an appropriate level of protection enshrined in legislation. We would choose to develop brownfield first. We seek the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites, including here in our capital city, rather than intruding on the green belt, which is critical for nature, is important for the health of human beings and for leisure and is often a site of sports facilities and agriculture, supporting the lives of our communities. That is another area where, sadly, this legislation falls far short. It is clear that this Government have a heavyweight majority. Through the measures that are being implemented, the Government are using that majority to deliver a left hook of reducing community voice and community say in planning applications. They are following that with a right hook of reducing protections on the green belt and building on virgin land—as we heard from the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is no longer in his place—rather than previously developed land being recycled. That is followed by the uppercut of wholesale top-down council reorganisation, and then a jab demanding that local plans the length and breadth of the country be changed through the national planning policy framework changes, without there being remotely the capacity at the Planning Inspectorate to deal with those in a timely manner. A number of Members have said, “Why is this happening, and what do you think needs to be done to address it?” The knockout blow to our housing market in the last 12 months has been delivered by the massive hike in national insurance introduced by this Government, which is leading developers, builders, the whole supply chain and local authorities to fear that they will have to throw in the towel, because it is simply not possible, under such a business-unfriendly Government, to deliver homes and infrastructure that require a pro-business environment. As the Bill proceeds, pummelling our first-time buyers, hammering our homeowners, bashing our builders, and duffing up our developers, on behalf of the Opposition I simply say this to the Minister: there is an opportunity this afternoon to begin to change course, and to signal that he believes, and we believe, that a different course of action is possible that will deliver the homes and infrastructure that the British people expect. I always enjoy meeting the Minister across the Dispatch Box, and I always keep my spare Conservative party membership form handy just in case he should ever need it—his high standards of professionalism suggest that one day he will make the journey to the dark side. Minister, take the opportunity to say to your colleagues that it is time to add to so many poor U-turns, a good U-turn. Let us get on with the job of delivering the homes and infra- structure that the British people need.

   Hansard source
3. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

   Planning and Infrastructure Bill

   I will speak to Lords amendment 28, which was introduced in the other place but relates specifically to my constituency. The Eskdalemuir seismic array, which is near the village of Eskdalemuir in my constituency, is a seismological monitoring station established to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions. To a generation that grew up following the end of the cold war, the facility may seem to be little more than a historical curiosity, but it continues to be a vital asset in global monitoring, in scientific research, and, crucially, in helping to keep the United Kingdom compliant with its international obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The Eskdalemuir seismic array has been operating since 1962, making it one of the longest-operating steerable seismic arrays in the world. The facility is geographically remote, in a low seismic noise environment, and highly calibrated and sensitive, enabling the detection of even small seismic signals at a vast distance. Over recent years, its seismometers have picked up the sonic boom from Russian jets in UK airspace, and have detected underground nuclear tests in North Korea. On one occasion, it was able to detect signals generated by the detonation of around 100 tonnes of conventional explosives in Kazakhstan. All that is clear evidence of the unique nature of the site and its capabilities. Some might wonder what the site has to do with the Bill. What could the Bill’s impact be on the maintenance of this vital scientific facility, which is crucial to our national defence and our undertakings under international treaties? In many rural constituencies in Scotland, the march of large-scale wind farm developments continues, encouraged by the Scottish Government. The forces acting on wind turbines cause vibration in the turbine—vibrations that can travel underground for many kilometres, with obvious consequences for facilities that require seismological quiet for their effective operation. As some Members may know, the desire of wind farm developers to push the boundaries of where their infrastructure can be located, and the boundaries of the guidance against which their applications are assessed, has led to challenges to the Ministry of Defence. A previous attempt by a developer to site a wind farm at Little Hartfell, which is in the consultation zone of the Eskdalemuir seismological monitoring station, led to judicial review proceedings against the MOD. On that occasion, the challenge did not dispute that the MOD is entitled to devise and enforce a policy to protect the array from interference with its detection capabilities—it concerned the way that proposed developments were prioritised—but the lesson is clear: developers will seek to push the boundaries of where and how their developments may be sited. Ministers must be aware of that, and willing to take measures to protect against that, where issues of national defence are at stake. The key consideration is this: in a dangerous and difficult world, we must not water down our defence systems or let down our allies to squeeze out what, in a national context, is a small amount of extra electricity. The UK Government should robustly refuse to entertain novel technologies within the 15 km exclusion zone proposed by the Eskdalemuir working group, which would replace the existing 10 km zone. That should also apply to those applications already in the planning system that were submitted by developers who continued to pursue their projects aggressively, with full knowledge that work was ongoing to review the exclusion zone. Our national defence must come first. I am sure that most people would agree that this is an area where an abundance of caution is well justified. It would be concerning if Ministers and the MOD were pressured into going too far in the name of net zero. I am not necessarily objective, because I am the Member of Parliament with the largest number of wind turbines in their constituency, either consented or built. I believe that industrial-scale wind farms are bad generally for the locality, but there need to be specific rules around them when national security is in question, and we have to protect our credibility with our international partners. Any loosening of the rules on infrastructure developments around facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, or passing up the opportunity to reinforce existing rules, would send entirely the wrong message, both to potential developers eager to exploit new opportunities to construct even more wind farms, and to our international partners, who rely on our ability to contribute to our own defence and our collective defence. Lords amendment 28 is an opportunity to underscore the protection needed for facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, and I want this Government take those protections forward.

   Hansard source
4. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Davis

   Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

   I start by welcoming the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to his place. We all know that Secretaries of State do not have to answer Adjournment debates. He and I will, of course, have robust differences of view on this, but no one can gainsay either his courtesy or his commitment to the task and so I thank him for being here. In the coming weeks, we will be asked to consider legislation addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland. We must approach that with the real facts of what happened in Northern Ireland, not the misinformation peddled by the IRA and their sympathisers. We should also remember that the state has a moral obligation to protect brave soldiers who defended our freedoms in the most testing circumstances. This is not simply a question of policy detail, but a question of principles: the principle that we do not abandon those who acted under our lawful instruction; the principle that we do not risk weakening the effectiveness of our armed forces; and the principle that we do not bend to the demands of terrorists or, indeed, their modern sympathisers. I am afraid that the Government’s proposed legislation does little to show any willingness to defend those principles, to which I will return shortly. In the Westminster Hall debate in July, we heard Labour MPs—Government-supporting MPs—argue: “The only thing that grants immunity to former members of the IRA is the Northern Ireland legacy Act as it stands.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 7WH.] That is, the Conservative Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That is plain wrong. The truth is that there has long been a de facto amnesty for crimes committed during the troubles. Blair’s Government created the Good Friday agreement. It is an agreement that, for the purpose of achieving peace—a good aim—drew a line under the atrocities that had been committed without resolving the complex issues of accountability. The Good Friday agreement contained a provision for early release of convicted prisoners. Four hundred and eighty-three terrorists were released from prison early—effectively pardoned—of which 143 had been sentenced to serve life sentences, and they inevitably included many killers. At least 16 terrorists were granted the royal prerogative of mercy—also effectively a pardon. They included hardened terrorists, guilty of extreme violence, such as Gerry Kelly, convicted for the Old Bailey bombings, which killed one person and injured over 200; the three IRA terrorists who murdered SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott; and Fergal Toal, who held down his victim’s arms while two of the victim’s fingers were hacked off with a hammer and chisel. They all received the royal prerogative of mercy. It was also the Blair Government who authorised the so-called on-the-run administrative scheme—that is its formal title—and the letters of comfort that accompanied it. It was a secret scheme that only came to light properly in 2014, years after terrorists had received their letters. It was kept secret precisely because it was so spectacularly controversial, and was done in response to Gerry Adams saying, “it would be better if there was an invisible process for dealing with OTRs.” The name speaks for itself: those people were on the run from the law. It was an administrative scheme precisely because attempts to legislate for it were dropped when Sinn Féin opposed them on the grounds that it would have protected soldiers too. Those were their explicit grounds. Of course, there was no risk for them in opposing it; they already had their letters, they already had their de facto immunity. The Government are coy about the exact numbers, but at least 156 people received an individual letter of comfort and many others were listed in Government communications as “not wanted” by the authorities. Again, we are talking about vicious murderers. Ninety-five of those in receipt of letters of comfort were involved in 295 murder investigations—295 murders. The letters were clear. I quote from the first letter of comfort issued: “You would not…face prosecution for any such offence should you return to the United Kingdom.” Those were letters given to murderers. The Government will, of course, retreat to the refuge of legal technicality. They will tell us that these letters were not, strictly speaking, an amnesty, as they left open the possibility of charges for crimes not yet discovered—as does any amnesty. The Government are hiding behind legalistic language. These letters absolutely did stop prosecutions for terrorist atrocities.

   Hansard source
5. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Davis

   Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

   My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench mentions the name John Downey. In 2014, John Downey faced prosecution for the Hyde Park bombing. He produced his letter of comfort and his trial collapsed. What the judge said at the trial is important. He stated there is a “public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain.” He could not be clearer. He concludes that “it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.” It should not have even been brought to trial. In other words, the judge was recognising a de facto amnesty. It was only at the collapse of Downey’s trial that the existence of the administrative scheme became public knowledge. The Secretary of State will respond with great charm and say, “Ah, but Mr Downey is now facing prosecution.” That is what he will say.

   Hansard source
6. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Davis

   Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

   I am right—one of my predictions has come right any way. But that prosecution is for alleged involvement in the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers in 1972, not his involvement in the Hyde Park bombing, in which he was ruled, by the way, to have been an “active participant” in a civil case, so we know that background. For those 1972 murders, it has been six years since charges were brought, and little or no progress has been made since then. The Government—quite properly—make much of the rights of victims, as do I. That has been part of my life in Parliament. But what of the rights of Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, Lieutenant Dennis Daly, Trooper Simon Tipper and Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young? All were killed in the Hyde Park bombing. All had their rights explicitly destroyed. Let us be frank about the collective effect of those Blair-era concessions: 483 terrorists released from prison early, at least 16 granted mercy—granted effective pardons—and at least 156 letters of comfort. Taken together, that is at least 655 people given some form of legal or administrative protection. I say again that it is “at least” 655 because, frankly, successive Governments have been deliberately obtuse in how they publish those numbers. I suspect the number is significantly higher, but 655 is what we know. Yet one of the primary defences of the Government’s new legislation put up by Government MPs in that Westminster Hall debate was that the “only thing” granting immunity to former members of the IRA is the previous Government’s Northern Ireland legacy Act. It is just ridiculous. Terrorists killed over 3,000 people during the troubles. As far as the House of Commons Library can establish, there were no convictions for troubles-era violent offences after the Good Friday agreement during the entire period of the Blair Government. That is what they tell me—none. I could not find any either. The vast majority of those 3,000 troubles-era killings remain unresolved, with no one having faced justice. Since those so-called “non-amnesties”, very few people have been convicted. Again, the Secretary of State said in the Westminster Hall debate that five convictions have been obtained for terrorist-related offences connected to the troubles since 2012—presumably under the Conservative or coalition Governments of that time. He did not name the cases, and I would like to see the details of those cases published so we can actually understand what has happened here. Are these dissident republicans? Are they loyalists? What are they? That is just so we know what has actually happened here. In any case, there have been five convictions for 3,000 killings, and the Government are trying to maintain that there is no amnesty—really? To ensure that no prosecutions could effectively be brought against the IRA, the Blair Government also agreed during the Good Friday agreement that none of the decommissioned IRA weapons could ever be used as forensic evidence in any future trial. Of course, there are not many witnesses in a trial about Northern Ireland terrorism—that is a fast way to the grave—so forensic evidence is critical, and it was all ruled out of order. For those few successful convictions since 1998 that the Secretary of State referred to, what is their punishment? It is limited to two years because of the Blair-era Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—two years for mass murder? Instead of seeing terrorists face justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests decades after the fact.

   Hansard source
7. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Davis

   Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

   My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I had forgotten about that report, but I did see it when the Committee published it under his chairmanship. Instead of seeing terrorists facing justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests, decades after the fact. That is a problem in part because inquests in Northern Ireland differ in two critical respects from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The first difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair Government. Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 changed the definition of “victim”. It ruled anyone affected by the troubles—through loss, trauma, or injury—would be classed as a victim. That means that a proven murderer killed in an attempt to carry out another murder is still classified as a victim. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims. That is still relevant. In September, the Democratic Unionist party—sadly none of its Members are present—used a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word “innocent” before “victims”. What did Sinn Féin do? It opposed the motion and removed the word “innocent” from before “victims”. Why? Because the word “innocent” exposes the truth; it draws a line between terrorists and their victims. “Veterans” and “victims” are not mutually exclusive terms; “terrorists” and “victims” are. Let us understand who these so-called victims are. At Loughgall—the greatest single defeat of the IRA by the SAS—eight heavily armed IRA murderers were stopped on their way to kill again. They and their weapons were implicated in at least 40 previous murders—and possibly more than 200, but it is very hard to pin that number down. Yet because of the Government’s proposals, and the Secretary of State’s promise to the sister of one of those IRA murderers, the soldiers who stopped them face being hauled before the courts, 30 years on, over an operation that prevented further bloodshed of innocent Northern Ireland citizens. The 2006 Order means that those dead terrorists are deemed to be victims. And what do veterans face? A one-sided inquest, weaponised by Sinn Féin in its attempt to rewrite history. Veterans—many of whom are in their advancing years—are dragged to the witness box. They are made to sit opposite the families of IRA killers—men who died while attempting to maim and kill the innocent. The atmosphere is not one of an impartial inquiry. I have spoken to a number of veterans, including one in particular who voluntarily attended the Coagh inquest to give evidence. He could not answer some factual questions—he did not know the answers—so the coroner put to him a hypothetical question to get him to answer a hypothetical version of the truth. The veteran declined, quite reasonably, to answer hypotheticals—that was not why he was there. In response, the coroner got “very cross”—the veteran’s words—raised his voice and threatened the veteran with contempt of court. The man was, at that point, a voluntary witness—not any more. He was so disgusted by the process that he will now only give evidence under subpoena; he will not volunteer again. In mainland Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass the evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In Northern Ireland, inquests have all too often sought to assign blame—all funded by a legal aid machine putting huge unjustified costs on the taxpayer. Just last month, a judicial review against a soldier who shot one of the terrorists at Coagh was robustly dismissed by the judge, who noted the “ludicrous nature of this challenge, funded as it is by legal aid.” I have never heard a judge be so critical of the award of legal aid, but plainly he thought this was ridiculous—ludicrous, in his words. Under the Government’s new legacy proposals, our veterans will remain subjects of suspicion and victims of this vexatious lawfare machine.

   Hansard source
8. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Davis

   Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

   I agree with the hon. Lady’s conclusion, and I happen to agree, as I will come back to in a moment, with the republicans’ view of the coroner’s inquiry process. It comes back to the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised as to what the punishment was. For a decent, ordinary, law-abiding soldier, the punishment is in the process—being dragged back, having this hanging over them for decades, the uncertainty they face, the sleepless nights and the stress it brings to them and their wives and children, who are worried in their own right and worried about their husband or father. That, I am afraid, is what the IRA and their sympathisers want. It is one of the reasons the IRA consider the very fact of Loughgall being referred to an inquest as a victory. They see that as a victory—that and the fact that it allows them another chance to rewrite history, to fit their own bogus claims. That is why, in a letter on Remembrance Day that has been repeated in this Chamber a number of times, nine four-star generals wrote: “By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered…as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy.” They go on to highlight the immediate effect, because we must bear in mind that this is having an effect right now on our serving armed forces. They said: “highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust.” I can attest to the fact that that is true. These are the reasons that our veterans hate this new legislation and view it as grotesquely unfair. It also raises the question of who the Government are trying to appease. When the Government announced the policy, it was done not in this House—I think it was on a Friday—but in a joint statement alongside the Irish Tánaiste. The Irish Government are being treated as an independent party to these troubles and brought into the reformed legacy commission established by the new Bill as a party that is assumed to be acting in good faith. Well, I am afraid that is not true. There is overwhelming evidence showing the Republic providing sanctuary to IRA terrorists during the troubles. As the Kingsmill—a terrible tragedy—inquest confirmed, terrorists exploited the porous border ruthlessly. The IRA committed acts of terror in the north and used the Republic as their shield—a base for planning, training, storing weapons and, of course, sanctuary; violence in the north, sanctuary in the south. Consider the brutal murder of Corporal James Elliott in 1972. IRA members abducted him at the border, dragged him into the Republic, tortured him for two days—two days—and shot him dead. They sent his body back across the border, booby-trapped with 500 lb of explosives and six claymores. What did the authorities in the Republic do? They charged two individuals not with murder, but with possessing explosives. When SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott was murdered, the killers escaped jail before they could be sentenced. Where did they flee? Straight across the border, aided by their comrades. If hon. Members need a third example, they should look at the Omagh bombing, which was carried out after the Good Friday agreement had been signed. That bombing, which injured more than 200 people and tragically killed 29 innocent civilians, one of whom was pregnant with twins, was both planned and launched from the Republic. Despite this, and notwithstanding the call from a Belfast High Court judge for an investigation on both sides of the border, the Irish Government refused to authorise a separate, parallel inquiry. The pattern is unmistakable, and in some cases, agencies of the Irish Government crossed the line from passive antagonism into active complicity. Former IRA intelligence officer, Kieran Conway, has admitted how leading members of the IRA were tipped off before Garda raids by Garda special branch. That was more than turning a blind eye; it was agencies of the Irish state actively participating in the subversion of justice. There are countless incidents laid bare before us, each one making this point plain. The most horrible one in my mind is from 1989, when two senior Northern Ireland policemen, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, were shot dead in an ambush as they crossed back into Northern Ireland. After almost eight years of detailed investigations, the Smithwick Tribunal determined that the Irish police colluded with the IRA in organising that attack. Between 1973 and 1999, the Republic of Ireland turned down 102 extradition requests, choosing to view murders in the north as political acts. The Irish state is not a neutral bystander. It was not some impartial observer. It was, in practice, a partisan actor—an actor that for more than 30 years has deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the IRA. For years, our armed forces have properly faced scrutiny for their actions during the troubles. We have answered that scrutiny with honesty— never to erase the truth, but to confront it. Yet we hear nothing of the de facto amnesties given to terrorists and murderers, nothing of the collusion that allowed that terror to take root, and nothing from the Government about preventing the vexatious pursuit of our soldiers, who are guilty of nothing but bravely serving their country during the dark days of the troubles. Instead, all we see are relentless attacks on those soldiers, with doubt introduced about the legitimacy of their actions, and the weaponisation of the entire legal process. We had a warning of that in a letter on Remembrance Day, when those generals wrote in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare, and specifically the risk posed by the Government’s legacy proposals. They said that, “the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither…This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.” The Government would do well to heed those warnings. Failure to do so brings injustice for those who served our country with honour, and threatens the future effectiveness of our armed forces. Every would-be enemy of the United Kingdom is watching how we handle this matter, and looking at plans for retaliation in our law courts as a way to avenge their defeat on the battlefields. As the generals warn in their letter: “make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”

   Hansard source
9. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Chris Philp

   Police Reform

   I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Minister mentioned at the beginning the Government’s plans to bring forward a police reform White Paper. That was announced, from memory, about a year ago, but there has not been a single sniff of that White Paper. Can she tell us when we can expect it and why the Government are so bereft of ideas that they have taken a year or more to publish it? Today’s statement about police and crime commissioners represents tinkering around the edges from a Government who are failing on crime and policing. They are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This Government are failing. Police numbers are falling. They fell by 1,300 during Labour’s first year in office on a like-for-like, March-to-March comparison. Police numbers are not only continuing to fall, but will drop even more this year. Crime under this Government is surging: shoplifting is up by 13% in this Government’s first year to record levels, leaving shopkeepers in difficulty, and we have seen theft from the person going up by 5% and sexual offences going up by 9%. If it were not enough to see all those crime types surging under this Labour Government, senior police officers are warning that they face a funding crisis. Indeed, the chief constables of our four largest forces—Merseyside, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan police—all said publicly just a few months ago that they face a funding crisis under this Labour Government. It is clear that this Government are failing on police and crime, with falling police numbers, increasing crime and a funding crisis, yet the Policing Minister comes to us today with some minor tinkering around the edges. The Government say that they want to transfer PCC powers to mayors where they exist and where the territories are coterminous. Broadly speaking, that is the approach the previous Government took. In fact, I recall transferring one of the Yorkshire forces, I think, into the mayoral model a year or so ago. She asserts that the mayoral model is superior to regular police and crime commissioners, and I wonder what evidence she can produce to support that, because the biggest police and crime commissioner in the country is the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who is also the worst PCC in the country. Knife crime is up 86% under Sadiq Khan, and the Met has the lowest clear-up rate of any force in the country at a lamentable 4.7%. He has closed down half the front counters in London, and police numbers are plummeting. How can the Minister make such an assertion? For areas outside mayoralties, the Minister proposes essentially to abolish PCCs and replace them with some kind of committee comprised of local councillors. Will those have the same powers as police and crime commissioners? It is implied that they will, and if so, it will not save any money, other than from the election and the police and crime panel, which are very small costs. As far as I can see, this proposal will not save any money, but will remove a directly elected public official—the police and crime commissioner—who is accountable to the public and would certainly be more visible than some faceless committee of local bureaucrats. That is a retrograde step. In the Government’s announcement today, they are tinkering around the edges. They are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while crimes such as shoplifting rocket, police numbers fall and the police face a funding crisis made in the Home Office.

   Hansard source
10. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Police Reform

    Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform Members that I plan to run this statement until no later than 1 o’clock, so we need to have short questions and short answers.

    Hansard source
11. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Point of Order: Rectification Procedure

    I call Cat Eccles on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare.

    Hansard source
12. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Point of Order: Rectification Procedure

    I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue.

    Hansard source
13. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    We now come to King’s consent. Do we have a Privy Counsellor present?

    Hansard source
14. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. Clause 2 National policy statements: parliamentary requirements

    Hansard source
15. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment 2, and Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2. Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 38, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendments 4 to 30, 34 to 36, and 41 to 117.

    Hansard source
16. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    Order. The hon. Lady will know that that is a very long intervention.

    Hansard source
17. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

    Hansard source
18. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Police Reform

    The train attack that took place in my Huntingdon constituency on 1 November was mercifully prevented from being far worse by the swift actions of Cambridgeshire constabulary in neutralising the threat and placing the suspect in custody within eight minutes of the 999 call being placed. However, the Government are lucky that that was the outcome. Cambridgeshire is the fourth worst funded police force in England and Wales, and it does not receive the south-east allowance. The current police allocation formula uses data from as far back as 2001. I know that our current PCC, Darryl Preston, and the current mayor, Paul Bristow, share my concern that our police are not adequately resourced, and we went through this last year with the Policing Minister’s predecessor. What commitment can the new Policing Minister offer me that she will completely overhaul the formula as part of the forthcoming police funding settlement, and give Cambridgeshire the fairer funding it needs?

    Hansard source
19. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Modern Day Slavery: Pakistan

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and especially today—thank you for saving the day by turning up to chair this important debate. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing another vital debate before the House in the characteristically noble fashion we have grown to expect from him. I also commend the other Members who have contributed to it, including the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who always speaks with passion and principle. She rightly highlighted examples of the exploitation of children, women and vulnerable people in Pakistan today. She said we cannot stay silent on slavery, and she is absolutely right: Britain needs to have a voice on this issue. She is also right that there should be a link between UK aid to Pakistan and dealing with the atrocious issue we are debating, so that we can get rid of modern-day slavery in that country. I commend the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who spoke about the Ahmadi Muslims. I myself have spoken about the way they are treated, and she is absolutely right that that is another area that needs to be highlighted and that we need to support that community. She said that Britain’s voice matters—absolutely it does—and we should use that voice strongly and clearly against the persecution and ill treatment we have been discussing this afternoon. I thank her for her comments. Modern slavery is one of the greatest moral outrages of our time. More than 50 million people are estimated to be under the yoke of slavery across the world—more than at any point in human history. It is a sobering truth that while we in Britain debate our country’s historic involvement in slavery, millions of men, women and children are being born, sold and trapped into slavery today. Pakistan is a Commonwealth partner and a friend of the United Kingdom, and only 70 years ago we shared the same head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. It is because of that close connection that Britain can raise, and ultimately assist in eradicating, the concerns we are debating. According to the Global Slavery Index, 2.3 million people are living in modern slavery in Pakistan, making it one of the top 20 worst affected nations in the world, and 10 or 11 people in every 1,000 are enslaved, which is an outrage. To contextualise that, throughout the entire 200 years that Britain was involved in the transatlantic slave trade, 3.4 million people were taken from Africa to the new world. In Pakistan today, 67% of that number are living in modern slavery. As we have heard this afternoon, the brick kilns of Pakistan are perhaps the clearest example. There are over 20,000 kilns across the country, employing up to 3 million workers, many of whom are trapped in bonded labour, with entire families working 14 to 16 hours a day in suffocating heat and toxic fumes to pay off debts that can never actually be repaid. These are generational debts of forced labour, which are passed from parents to children, binding generation after generation to indentured servitude in many of these kilns. Workers are paid barely enough to survive, let alone escape. Children—some of them as young as five—mould bricks alongside their parents. Women, often from minority faith backgrounds, face harassment, violence and sexual abuse from their employers. The majority of brick kiln workers are from among Pakistan’s poorest and least educated, and too often from religious minorities, including Christians and Hindus, who are disproportionately affected. Many families are lured into bondage by loans, which they take out as a last resort to pay for food, medical bills and dowries. Illiteracy means they rarely understand the exploitative interest rates or the false records maintained by their employers. Their debts are also recorded informally and arbitrarily, which means they are effectively impossible to contest. Unfortunately, these workers are invisible to the state. As was referred to, Pakistan passed the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act in 1992, but over three decades later enforcement appears sporadic and ineffective. In the last Parliament, a report from the APPG for the Pakistani minorities, chaired by the hon. Member for Strangford, rightly said that “successive governments have lacked the political will or capacity to enforce the law.” The same report recommended that His Majesty’s Government use their aid budget to strengthen monitoring and compliance with International Labour Organisation standards, and even earmark £500,000 to hire inspectors to carry out unannounced inspections of brick kilns. The aid budget might be a controversial topic at present, but I say to the Minister that if we are going to spend money on development aid, we should surely take up the mantle of our forefathers by taking the fight to slavery. When the Minister replies, will she tell us whether the Government will support the creation of a dedicated UK-funded inspection mechanism for Pakistan’s brick kilns? Will the FCDO consider making aid conditional on measurable progress in tackling bonded labour? Will the Department for Business and Trade issue clearer guidance to UK firms about the risk of slavery in supply chains linked to Pakistan’s construction sector? Although we are focusing particularly on Pakistan, I am sad to say that it is far from unique. Across Asia, Africa and, shockingly, even Europe, cases of forced labour, human trafficking and child exploitation still persist. The ILO estimates that forced labour generates $236 billion in illegal profits every year, which in state terms is roughly the size of the Portuguese, Czech or Greek economies. It is huge. As I alluded to, this is also very much a problem for the United Kingdom. British consumers unknowingly buy goods produced through forced labour in a range of areas, such as fashion, electronics, seafood and construction materials. Will the Minister therefore outline what steps are being taken to update, reform and strengthen the Modern Slavery Act? Do the Government agree that development aid must be conditional on the efforts taken by recipients to tackle modern day slavery? This House must not shy away from the fact that our nation has been the ultimate force for good in the world. We should speak proudly of Britain’s historic role in abolishing the slave trade, not apologise for it. It was this country that led the world—at great cost—in suppressing the slave trade in the 19th century. The Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron rescued tens of thousands of enslaved Africans from ships flying other nations’ flags, and policed the eradication of the slave trade across the seas. Today, the same voices that denounce our ancestors for slavery’s past—a trade that unfortunately predates civilisation as we know it—too often turn a blind eye to slavery’s present, as we have discussed. They are quick to pull down statues, yet slow to stand up for the children working in brick kilns, mines and sweatshops. It is easy to virtue signal about history; it is harder to confront the uncomfortable truth that slavery continues today in countries we trade with, partner with and fund, let alone in a Commonwealth nation such as Pakistan. We should not therefore indulge in moral self-flagellation, but lead once again in the cause of abolition. The UK should prioritise anti-slavery measures in all development programmes in Pakistan; support NGOs providing legal aid, education and rehabilitation to bonded labourers; push for the digital registration of all brick kiln workers to bring them within the formal economy; and champion the global partnerships to eradicate slavery by 2030. I suggest to the Minister that the FCDO publish an annual report on progress made against modern slavery globally. I emphasise that the UK should once again lead internationally, as we did two centuries ago, to ensure that every human can live in freedom. Shamefully, modern slavery is not a relic of the past; it remains very much a stain on our present. The children in Pakistan’s brick kilns deserve the same rights, the same dignity and the same hope that we take for granted here in these islands. The Britain I know and love stands for freedom and for individual liberty, and is wholesale against oppression, whether that comes in the form of the state or the corporation. If we are to influence affairs abroad, there is no finer crusade than the moral crusade to unchain children and their mothers and fathers from a life spent in forced labour and exploitation. Britain must lead this cause—just as we did before.

    Hansard source
20. 13 Nov 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Business of the House

    My constituents continue to suffer from the dither, delay and ineptitude of Transport for London and the Mayor, as the rebuilding of the Gallows Corner junction, which was originally meant to be completed in September, is now delayed to the spring. This is causing chaos in Essex and on the eastern side of London. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to take over this project, so that everyone can get on with their life and travel freely through this junction?

    Hansard source
21. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Suella Braverman

    Energy

    As we are trading quotes, we now learn that energy bills are set to rise by hundreds of pounds because of the Government’s green levies. That is not just my opinion; it is the evidence of Centrica, of Octopus Energy and of EDF. Is the Minister seriously coming to this Chamber and saying that some of the biggest gas and electricity suppliers to the country are wrong?

    Hansard source
22. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Engagements

    On that point, with the upcoming vote on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, nine of the most respected and experienced generals of a generation have publicly attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they have said will erode trust in the justice system, and is a threat to national security. As a veteran who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles, I ask this: does the Prime Minister think they are all wrong, and when will he start standing up for our veterans?

    Hansard source
23. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Taxes

    The Minister talks about the building up of debt. Does he understand that when Labour was last in power, debt went up from 36% of GDP to about 76% of GDP? That massive increase built the foundation of the debt that we have today.

    Hansard source
24. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Taxes

    It is interesting that the hon. Member raises the moron increase. I point out that we are no longer in government. The hon. Member’s party was also in government from 2010 to 2015.

    Hansard source
25. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Taxes

    It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who clearly has an ideology that he believes. As a Conservative, I believe in lower taxes, and that people have a better understanding than Governments of how to spend their own money. I want to see more South Shropshire constituents keep more of what they earn. Last year’s Halloween Budget hoicked taxes by £40 billion a year. It included a hugely damaging rise in employer national insurance contributions, which has added almost £1,000 to the cost of employing someone. We are stunting the wealth creators, and that is not acceptable. The Chancellor did that with one hand, and withdrew support from our suffering high streets with the other. Pubs will have to pay an extra £3,000 on average because of the changes to business rates, and they are feeling it. The latest statistics have confirmed that economic growth has flatlined, despite the Chancellor’s promise to “lead the most pro-growth, pro-business Treasury our country has ever seen, with a laser focus on delivering for the working people”. How is that going? Since last year’s Budget, a huge number of people—the figure is approaching 180,000—are out of work. Jobs have been lost, and unemployment is up to 5%. A year ago, the Chancellor told the country that she would not come back with any more tax hikes. The slate had been wiped clean. She clearly said on TV: “This is what I will be doing, and I will not have to come back.” No matter what reason they come up with, if the Government break that manifesto promise, I believe it will hurt them beyond what they believe possible. They have run out of road in their continual blaming of the previous Government. However, it seems almost certain that that is what will happen, so pensions, savings, cars and houses are all sadly in the frame for Labour’s Budget. South Shropshire is a big rural constituency, so let us consider rural prosperity. The Chancellor’s policies have killed growth, fuelled inflation and reduced opportunities for South Shropshire residents. On average, productivity, earnings and ease of access to further education are all lower in rural than in urban areas. Closing those gaps could add billions to England’s economy. A stronger economy is needed to enhance public services. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that we need strong public services, but we cannot stifle private industry and businesses to get them. The shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), has shown how huge savings can be made at the same time as cutting taxes for working people. If the shadow Chancellor and shadow Treasury team set out clear objectives, we should put party politics behind us and adopt some of them for the good of the country. The family farms tax is crippling farmers in South Shropshire. I have a huge rural constituency—25% of my constituents work in the agriculture industry—and the tax is really hurting it. The Budget must reverse the cruel family farm tax, which needs to change. Farmer confidence has dropped to its lowest-ever level on record. More than 6,000 farms have already closed under this Government. That is concerning, and it is a threat to food security. The Budget must also reverse some measures to release the stranglehold on the high street. Every Member would struggle to find a business in their constituency that says, “I am enjoying the measures that have been put in.” More than a thousand pubs and restaurants on our high streets have already gone—that is the equivalent to two every single day. That is an issue. I welcome the fact that a future Conservative Government would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. That would stimulate growth, and we could then invest in the areas where we need to.

    Hansard source
26. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Taxes

    He raises a huge point. In my constituency of 700 square miles, the local pub and village hall are community hubs. After Remembrance Sunday, I took my family to the Queens in Ludlow. I have met many publicans across South Shropshire. Experienced publicans are still just able to keep trading on reserves, but they are not really making a profit. The ones who are just setting out to build up that reserve are going broke. It is just not a viable situation for them at the moment. Council tax bills doubled in the time that Labour was last in power, representing an extra £751 on an average band D home. The Conservatives put in veto powers to ensure that council tax did not increase over a certain amount. We allowed local areas to receive the funding that they wanted by raising council tax within 5%, but without excessive rises. At the moment, less funding is going into rural areas but council tax is going up by a dramatic amount, so people are paying more and getting less. The County Councils Network has named Shropshire council as one of 16 local authority areas that will see significant cuts in direct Government funding. It suggests that there will be about £9 million of cuts to Government funding over the next three years. That will affect many different services, including Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service, which has said so on record. I have written to many constituents as part of my “shop local” survey, and I have heard from almost 10% of them—thousands of people have responded. People say that they love going to the local high street and want to do so. However, the footfall numbers are dropping. Businesses say that they do not have confidence, and that it is getting harder and harder to trade. That is causing major issues on the high street. We must release the stranglehold on the high street and encourage growth. The biggest factor, businesses tell me, is the tax hikes, which are crippling. I make a plea to the Government to change their approach to taxing small businesses, or they will destroy the country.

    Hansard source
27. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Taxes

    I will gladly take an intervention from any Labour Member whose local businesses say that the tax on local business is good. Anyone?

    Hansard source
28. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Taxes

    I am happy that you intervened, and if you support tax hikes for your—

    Hansard source
29. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Taxes

    I will start that again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman intervened. If he speaks to businesses across his constituency, they might say that they understand the tax hike, but I am asking if any of them support it. I am happy if he wants to intervene to say that they do. Despite the huge pressures, I will continue to campaign for funding and support that enables businesses to thrive. The biggest area is tax cuts, and it remains a vital part of my focus to unleash rural prosperity for South Shropshire. I urge colleagues across the House to vote down any future tax rises.

    Hansard source
30. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Taxes

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking highly of my constituency—Ludlow is lovely. Does he realise that austerity started under the Labour Government when they were last in power? They started measures to make cuts in 2008-09.

    Hansard source
31. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Energy

    I am delighted to speak in this debate, because this is such an important topic for many of my constituents across South Shropshire. Both individuals and businesses need energy prices to come down—the cost is not sustainable, and it is on the wrong trajectory—and we need to be honest with the British people about the route for achieving that. The Leader of the Opposition has clearly said that the net zero target is not achievable. We are being honest in this discussion. I believe that over the coming few years, all Members in this House will see that the target is not achievable, and it will be reversed. We are trying to bluff the British people—I think that is the word I would use—and make them believe that if we offset our carbon emissions and bring them down that way, it is okay to import all our energy. We have many more reserves that we can use before we need to bring in any energy from overseas; we can pull the reserves out of our ground and use them. There is a lot more that we can do on that. Members may say, “We need to look at solar.” Let us look at rare earth metals, which I have spoken about several times in the Chamber. There are 17 rare earth metals, 90% of which are processed in or through China, which literally uses a scorched earth policy to pull them out of the ground.

    Hansard source
32. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Energy

    The hon. Member raises a very interesting point. China looked at this issue 30 years ago; when I went over to Australia about five years ago, the Australians were looking at it, and the US was looking at it, too. Every country outside of China has left this way too late. Putting in place a critical minerals strategy now is way too late, but we still need one in place. We need to look at this issue. All the magnets that we use in this country, including for MRI scans, require rare earth metals. That strategy should be in place today. We got that wrong—I am happy to admit that we did not get our rare earth metals strategy right—and it is costing us. Everybody is waking up to the need for that strategy, but we cannot say, “Let’s just pull those metals in from China; we are very happy for them to offset our carbon emissions over there.” I also want to look at energy from a defence perspective. We need energy to ensure that we have strong defence. Recently, the Government committed to the NATO standard, which is to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence and 1.5% of GDP on defence-related areas. We should focus on article 3 of NATO—internal defence—and that 1.5% of defence-related spending should be focused on a couple of things, namely energy security and food security. I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and discussions are ongoing about how that money should be used. If our tanks do not have any fuel to get where they need to go, they cannot fight; that is before we even look at ammunition and things like that. Rather than saying, “We have to go faster on renewables,” we should be having the bigger discussion about national resilience and energy security. The world is the most unstable it has been since the second world war. We need something in place now, and we need to move to what is sustainable. Defence is key to that. I have mentioned food security. Outside of Much Wenlock in my constituency, which has just been voted the happiest place to live in Shropshire—it is a lovely place to live—there are 600 acres of prime agricultural land that can grow food, and a beautiful view that is one of the best in the country. There is an application to replace it with 600 acres of solar panels. I have not found one person in the constituency who wants to turn that land into a site for solar energy; it is only the landowner who wants to. If we put solar panels all over it, as part of the roll-out of solar at speed—the Minister has mentioned that the Government are going quicker—we will be doing so with no regard for local people and what they want for their communities. This is really detrimental; the discussion about net zero is getting killed because local communities are being overridden. I have talked about the speed of solar, and about defence and food security, but we also need to look at homes that are off the grid. In South Shropshire, only 42% of homes are on gas mains; many are off the grid. I think the average across the country is about 73%. Some of the Government’s plans that the Minister has set out are not working for a lot of off-grid communities. There are a lot of old homes in South Shropshire, many of them built pre-1945, that are too expensive to retrofit.

    Hansard source
33. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Independent Football Regulator

    I like and respect the right hon. Lady and I do not doubt her sincerity, but I do wonder whether she would have been quite so forgiving had I chosen to appoint a Tory donor to lead this regulatory body. Moreover, although I supported the establishment of the regulator and, indeed, initiated it at the time of the risk of a European Super League, I fear that since then the regulator has become excessively bureaucratic. It risks deterring international investment and the broader investment in the game that has been so beneficial for it. Does the right hon. Lady think that it might be time to look again at this regulator, and to put more emphasis on self-governance in football? I think that in recent years, it has shown itself to be capable of stepping up to the challenge.

    Hansard source
34. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to control public expenditure in order to keep the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Confederation of British Industry conference on 25 November 2024 that, after the last Budget, the Government would not raise taxes; and further calls on the Government not to break its manifesto commitment that it would not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax or VAT. Right at the centre of this motion is the single word “trust”—the trust that Labour Members lost with the British electorate. They lost it when they promised not to put taxes on farms, and did so; when they said they would not be means-testing the winter fuel payment, yet did; and when they said they would not be putting up taxes left, right and centre, but did exactly that when they came into office. Indeed, in their own manifesto there were around £7 billion of tax increases, which by the time of the first Budget translated into some £40 billion of additional taxes. Of course, much of that related to employer national insurance—a clear breach of the Labour party manifesto. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of Paul Johnson, the former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that that particular tax increase was a “straightforward breach” of the Labour party manifesto. The Chancellor also said that she would not take decisions that would affect working people, yet we know from the figures released just yesterday that unemployment is at a five-year high. There are 180,000 fewer jobs on payrolls on her watch. Some sectors are particularly badly impacted. Some 90,000 jobs in hospitality have been destroyed, which particularly affects the youngest people in our country, who are desperate to get on the first rung of the career ladder but are deprived of that opportunity by Ministers. After that calamitous Budget, there were further pledges and further promises from the Chancellor. She said to the Treasury Committee: “we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases”. She said on Sky News that she had “wiped the slate clean”. On 25 November, at the CBI’s annual conference, she said: “I’m not coming back with more borrowing or taxes.” There has been little of that language of late, and I think we all know why. At the October Budget, the Chancellor said something else that was telling and extremely important. It is worth my repeating it in full. It relates to her clear pledge not to extend the freeze in the personal allowance under the income tax regime. She said: “I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. 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.] When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he reconfirm that solemn pledge the Chancellor made in the last Budget? [Interruption.] He could intervene now—that is true. We know that the Chancellor has messed up the economy, yet now, only about a year into the Government, we are already into the blame game. The Chancellor made an extraordinary and rather confusing address to the nation recently in No. 10 Downing Street, in which she sought to blame everybody for this fiasco except herself. She blamed Brexit. She blamed Donald Trump. And when it came to future downgrades of productivity by the Office for Budget Responsibility, she even had the temerity to blame those of us on the Conservative Benches—blaming the past for the future. I was half expecting her to blame world war two or the great war, or the Boer war, or perhaps the battle of Hastings, which surely, with the harrying of the north, must have scarred our economy and must still be being felt 1,000 years later.

    Hansard source
35. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    It was the Korean war—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the Chancellor’s choices that have led to this situation. She was the person who chose to put up taxes on jobs, which has led to growth being anaemic. We know that taxes such as national insurance feed through to lower investment, higher inflation, higher unemployment and lower real wages. We know that the Government talked down the economy with the absurd and fictitious £22 billion black hole. In a sweet irony, when they asked the OBR to come in and opine on that number, it said that it would not legitimise it.

    Hansard source
36. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I shall come to those matters shortly, because there are alternatives to what the Government have decided to do. It was this Government who went on a reckless borrowing spree. This year, we have borrowed £100 billion—the highest borrowing in our history, excluding the pandemic. Why has that happened? Because the Chancellor has fiddled the fiscal rules. She changed the debt definition from public sector net debt, as it was under us, to public sector net financial liabilities, which allows far more borrowing. In fact, under the original definition that we had—which she, incidentally, said she would not change—she would have been underwater in just about every year of the forecast on the debt target. That recklessness has led to the Labour party having plans to borrow half a trillion pounds more over the period of this Parliament than we had in our plans that it inherited.

    Hansard source
37. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we borrow more money, we pay more for that borrowing. Of course, that has fed through to inflation. We know that inflation this year, according to the International Monetary Fund, will be the highest in the G7. The IMF also says it will be the highest in the G7 next year. The consequence of that in monetary policy is interest rates being higher for longer. Of course, if we have a mountain of debt and add to it ruinously, the cost of servicing that debt goes through the roof. It now stands at about £100 billion a year, rising to £130 billion at the end of the scorecard. That is more than twice what we spend on defence every year.

    Hansard source
38. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    My right hon. Friend makes an extremely incisive and correct point. If a Government spend huge amounts of money, there is an opportunity cost to that and it comes through in various forms, including, as he rightly says, raising the cost of capital and crowding out labour, skills and so on. It is a fine and important balance to get right and this Government, palpably, have got it wrong.

    Hansard source
39. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    The hon. Gentleman’s question identifies the core of the fallacy of his Government’s approach, which is to assume that getting better outputs is all about spending ever more money. It is not. It is about what you do with that money; it is about productivity. One of the Government’s many mistakes when they came to office was to splash out on pay rises for their trade union paymasters—14% for the railways drivers and 22% for the junior doctors—with not one string attached in terms of improved productivity. Therein lies the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

    Hansard source
40. 12 Nov 2025·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Taxes

    I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would follow up what was not the strongest first question with that. The Government are naive enough to think that by simply buying people off with no strings attached, the problem would go away. It is like feeding meat to the wolf: when the wolf is fed meat, it will come back to the door the next day, and that is precisely what has happened here. Industrial relations are not improving at the moment. We have various unions in the public sector threatening to strike, including in the NHS, where the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) started in his first question. Where has all this led? It has led to lower growth. No matter how much those on the Front Bench may trumpet increased growth, the reality is that growth per capita—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) says it is the highest in the G7, but our growth per capita is the second lowest in the G7. What matters is growth per capita, because that is what drives an improvement in living standards. [Interruption.] I have more bad news for the hon. Gentleman, who continues to chunter from a sedentary position: the IMF says that growth per capita will deteriorate even further next year and be the lowest in the G7.

    Hansard source