5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Mr Jim Shannon. If people have contributed, they should make their way back to the Chamber. Danny Kruger, I am looking at you to whip your colleague.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hundreds of Mid Leicestershire residents who took the time to sign the two petitions. I want to speak directly to each and every one of them: you are absolutely right to sign, and you should not feel ashamed, belittled or even embarrassed for doing so; your views come from a deep sense of national pride, a strong belief in the rule of law and, above all, a commitment to fairness. They reflect a widespread feeling that the immigration system is failing. It is failing law-abiding British citizens, the British taxpayer and the integrity of our borders. We in this place must do better. Today, I proudly stand with my constituents, who deserve better. [Sir John Hayes in the Chair] It is deeply disrespectful to the hard-working families in Mid Leicestershire and across the UK—who get up early, work long hours, pay their taxes and contribute to society—that individuals who come here illegally stay in hotels with access to three meals a day, healthcare and all the other benefits. Meanwhile, my constituents are struggling with the cost of living, and watching their purse strings tighten month after month. That is not sustainable, and it is simply not fair. We must put an end to this open-door policy, which is placing unbearable pressure on our welfare system, public services and communities. We must close the hotels and deport those who are taking advantage of our system. It really is that simple—we just need a Government with the gumption to do it. As a country, we cannot continue to spend £6 million on these hotels every single day. Our once-great nation—the nation of the NHS, world-class education and the rule of law—is choosing to spend billions on illegal migrants. That is money that could be better invested in our schools, police and hospitals. Hotels that once welcomed tourists to showcase the best of Britain are now occupied by individuals who in many cases have no respect for our borders, culture or rule of law, all while veterans sleep on the streets, local economies die and housing waiting lists grow rapidly. The system simply is not fair, and it is not what the British people voted for. What did we get from the Government in response to the petitions? Bluster, what-aboutery and a clear lack of understanding. Governments of all colours have made mistakes on migration over the past 40 years. Many new MPs, particularly on the Conservative Benches, have articulated this point brilliantly to those Members who were in the House before us. I know that the Leader of the Opposition gets this and has a plan. First, we will end the endless lawfare surrounding illegal migration. Then, as some Members have expressed it, we will deport, deport, deport. It really is that simple. The Conservative party is united in its commitment to leave the European convention on human rights and the European convention against trafficking and repeal the Human Rights Act 1998.
Many of these agreements were established 50, 60 or 70 years ago, in a completely different world. They are completely outdated and are not applicable to modern Britain. With regard to the hon. and learned Member’s comment about the returns agreement, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members, when an agreement was in place before Brexit, we were a net recipient, so his argument simply does not hold water. Time and again, these outdated frameworks have been used by activist do-gooders to block any form of deportation. We will never have control of our borders and do what the petitioners have asked for until we leave these conventions. A clean withdrawal from them will enable a future Government to act in a tough but fair manner for the people of Great Britain. We will not be deterred by woke protests or sneering lectures from the chattering classes; we will secure our borders and we will restore fairness. And that is not all. A future Conservative Government will establish a dedicated removal force with real power and financial backing. That force will deport all illegal migrants within seven days of arrival, to ensure that foreign criminals have no place in the UK and to stop economic migrants abusing our system. Ultimately, we must put the British people first and restore fairness to the system. Yes, my words today have been direct; they have been stark. That is because every petitioner from my constituency has had enough—I have had enough. It is time to stop the lawfare, deport those who have no right to be here, and restore confidence and fairness to our immigration system.
Too many young people are being saddled with huge debts from universities with little to show by way of career prospects. There is a clear case for the Government to slash poor-value degrees and redirect the savings to the apprenticeship budget, doubling it to, say, £6 billion a year. Will the Secretary of State explain why she is allowing low-quality university courses to continue unchecked, while taxpayers write off billions of pounds every year in unpaid student loans?
The Secretary of State has claimed today that she is expanding opportunities, while raising tuition fees and cutting international baccalaureate funding for sixth forms in Bexley with little notice. Who did she consult on the decision to cut IB funding? What analysis was undertaken, and will she apologise to the schools across the UK left in limbo by her reckless approach to education?
On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s claim that the Government are making progress, does he expect the total number of nights spent in hotels by asylum seekers to be higher or lower this year than it was last year?
10. What steps her Department is taking to support vocational training for people aged under 19.
Using funding delivered by the last Conservative Government, work is under way to deliver an incredible, brand new, purpose-built vocational training centre for the Neta Training Group in Stockton. It will offer youngsters the chance to get great skills and jobs. Does the Minister agree that we should be capping any debt-trap degree courses that fail to deliver employment opportunities and instead increasing the apprenticeship budget—maybe even doubling it—to give young people career-focused routes to success?
The hon. and learned Member said he met an asylum seeker at Napier barracks who said that they just wanted to be safe. Assuming that they had come from France, did he investigate with that person why they were unsafe in France?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. In my constituency we have the Stanwell hotel, which is currently an asylum hotel. From correspondence in my mailbag, I had heard there was the potential for the Home Office to change its policy on use. Hitherto, the capacity for families at the Stanwell hotel was 114, and the families who were there had integrated well. They had gone to local schools, got involved in local churches and in some cases were undergoing medical treatment as a result of pre-existing conditions. There were also some single people there. I visited on 3 October and was told there had been no history of poor interactions between single males and families. The residents of Trinity Close were very concerned because they got wind of a rumour that the Stanwell hotel was going to be reconfigured from being pretty much families only to being used for single males only, so they asked me to try to find out. I wrote to the Home Office on three occasions and asked how long the contract for the hotel had been signed for, but the Home Office did not reply, so I had to raise it with the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House. I was assured that I would receive a response, including a date when I could visit. The Home Office team were then all cleared out; I could speculate on the reasons, but the Government will know. I finally got a chance to visit on 3 October, when I spent two hours there and learned a number of things. First, the hotel had not quite transitioned to full capacity for single males. I was told it was going to take a matter of weeks, so it is possible that it has been done now. This is of great concern to local residents, who much preferred it when the hotel was used for families only, because of its proximity to schools and green spaces, which makes Stanwell village a pretty inappropriate place for 98 single males only. I saw the conditions people were in, with two to a room. One thing really got to me. The Government’s line is that they want to reduce the number of hotels, so they are going to sweat the existing estate harder by putting more people into it so that they can close things down. I was aghast to find that the Stanwell’s capacity as a families-only hotel was way higher than when it is used for single males, which did not make sense to me. Having written to the Home Office to ask when the contract was going to end, I was told in a letter that that was not the sort of commercial information it was customary to share. I was delighted to get a letter yesterday confirming that what I had heard on the visit was correct and the contract ends on 31 July next year. Meanwhile, behind the scenes the local council has been trying to find out what has been going on, as I have in parallel. At an emergency general meeting the Conservative group on Spelthorne borough council proposed an amendment calling for the hotel to be returned to use as a community hotel, which is exactly what the community wants. It is the place where people went for weddings and funerals, for playing cards in the afternoon and for Sunday lunch, and that is what they want it to be again. I was fairly surprised, then, that Spelthorne borough council, which comprises independents, Liberals and Labour, voted against returning it to use as a community hotel, which is Government policy. The Minister might wish to follow that up with Labour councillors in Spelthorne.
When President Macron visited earlier this year, he said part of the problem was that there were far too many pull factors in Britain. Giving people the right to work would, to my mind, be another pull factor. The Government would quite rightly say, “Well, you didn’t manage to do it either,” but I would much rather we were able to control our borders ab initio, so that we did not have to face the problem of asylum hotels.
I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention. I am going to be a bit “beggar thy neighbour”-ish, I am afraid, but my reason for highlighting the Stanwell hotel is that I believe a number of the other contracts run to two or three years longer than the one there. Given that it is Government policy to close all asylum hotels within this Parliament, I encourage the Minister to place the Stanwell hotel at the top of the list. Not only is it not good to renegotiate a contract when we do not have to, but if the Government are going to do all this in the space of this Parliament, they need to start somewhere, and I recommend that they start with the Stanwell hotel in my Spelthorne constituency.
My party’s responsibility—although I was not here myself—is not just for signing the contracts for the hotels; it is for losing control of our borders in the first place. The Government have said they are going to get control of the borders, but sadly the numbers simply do not support that. I did not intervene on the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) when he was moving the motion, but I was tempted to ask him how many had gone back to France under the one in, one out scheme. The answer is not going to change the price of fish. When the Minister makes his plan for the closure of the hotels, he should be aware that the Stanwell hotel is now controversial. The residents very much do not want it to be used for single male migrants only; they were very accommodating when it was used for families. I fear that if it is not a high priority for closure, there could be drama in the offing, so I would add it to the Minister’s list of things to do—and I am going to make as much noise about it as it takes for him to want to shut me up by doing what I want.
I omitted to say that, in Stanwell’s case, all the families who were moved out of the hotel were simply moved to another hotel, so although I agree with the hon. Member, he needs to know what his Government are up to in order to make his case more strongly.
The previous Schools Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), was so excited to hear from me about Manor Mead special school in my constituency that she undertook to visit it. Sadly, she had to cancel that visit and has now clearly moved on to other things, so would the new Schools Minister like to visit Manor Mead special school and see the fantastic work being done there?
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the Secretary of State needs to speed up publication of the guidance on single-sex spaces used by trans people in schools, so can the Secretary of State confirm that the guidance will be published before the conclusion of Labour’s deputy leadership contest, or will she continue to forsake female-only spaces for her own political ambitions?
The Education Secretary talks about wanting to improve outcomes for white working-class boys, yet disadvantaged children in Wales are being failed by the very model that she wants to introduce here in England. Is it not the case that the best thing she can do for white working-class pupils is to stop her school reforms?
What we did for 14 years was improve school standards. Not content with destroying standards, this afternoon the Secretary of State will, according to media reports, introduce a new lower-level qualification targeted at white working-class pupils. That is simply watering down standards for some of our most deprived children. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under this Government, the soft bigotry of low expectations is back?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I will start with V-levels. If they are a continuation of the reforms that we began to simplify the post-16 qualification landscape, I welcome it, but without the White Paper it is hard to understand whether that is the case. There are fundamental questions regarding the announcement that the statement does not answer, so I hope the Secretary of State will be able to shed some light on them today. Are V-levels simply a rebranded continuation of the reforms that we began, or are they a completely new qualification that will take years to develop? What is happening with BTECs, Cambridge technicals and other applied general qualifications? Are they all being scrapped? If so, what is the timeline for that? The Secretary of State says that she will consolidate 900 qualifications, but into how many? How will employers be involved in shaping the new courses? As I said in oral questions earlier, I am deeply concerned by reports today about the introduction of the so-called lower-level qualifications aimed specifically at white working-class people. There has long been a term for that in education policy: the soft bigotry of low expectations. We reject that. Let me be clear: if this is a plan, it is an insult. Are we really saying that white working-class children are less capable of achieving the same qualifications as their peers, or that the answer to disadvantage is to lower expectations rather than to raise ambition? We should aspire to the best qualifications, teachers and outcomes for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We should not hard-bake the acceptance of second best into Government policy. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that pupils who fail their English or maths GCSE will be expected to retake them? Or is she content to assign them to second-tier qualifications? Will she ensure that every single pupil, whatever their background, can expect to be supported to achieve the same high standards? The truth is that under Labour, young people are being badly let down. Youth unemployment is rising and job prospects are sinking as a result of this Government’s choices. The Conservatives have a clear plan to put an end to debt-trap low-quality degrees and to double the budget for apprenticeships. Labour’s plan is all over the place. At the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister declared that the ambition for 50% of young people to go to university is not “right for our times”. The Prime Minister clearly has not been paying attention, as he abolished a target that the Conservatives had already got rid of. What is more, today’s plan, as set out, would mean two thirds of young people would be in higher-level learning, but, as I understand it, with only 10% in higher technical education or apprenticeships. That would increase the proportion of those going to university from 50% to around 57%. Only a Prime Minister like this one could abolish a target that does not exist, then accidentally announce one that goes further than the non-existent target he just pretended to get rid of. It is rather rich for the Secretary of State to boast that she has taken decisive action to fix university finances—the House will forgive me if I take that with a pinch of salt. Before the election, she promised that graduates “will pay less” under Labour. Well, it turns out that they will pay more—quite a lot more—and every penny of the extra cost this year is swallowed by Labour’s national insurance jobs tax. To be absolutely clear, the rise in tuition fees is a spending commitment, as it costs the Exchequer significant sums. The cost does not just fall on students; it falls on the taxpayer too. When we were in government, we introduced T-levels and degree-level apprenticeships and put English and maths at the heart of all vocational qualifications, because that is what ensures that young people have the best start in life. All this Government are doing is embedding the soft bigotry of low expectations in our system and doing nothing to help young people with debt-trap degrees. It is not good enough.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the Petitions Committee, my constituency neighbour, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for presenting these petitions, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have made their voices heard by signing them. Despite the clear wishes of the British people, successive Governments of different parties have failed to control immigration, both legal and illegal. This is a complete scandal and is probably the single biggest reason for the declining trust in our politics. It is a particular scandal that, as an island nation, we have failed to stop people from coming to this country illegally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) rightly said. Since the small boats crisis began in 2018, nearly 200,000 people have come to Britain via that route. In 2025 alone, more than 35,000 people have made the crossing. On arrival, more than 95% of those people have claimed asylum, and having done so, they are afforded generous support, including direct cash transfers. Often, they are placed in hotels, where they can pose a risk to local people, particularly men posing a risk to women and girls. We have already heard about one such horrifying case from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) today, and I am sorry to say that there are many more. Illegal migrants can stay in the asylum system for years, launching endless appeals. Increasingly, our system is approving asylum claims on the thinnest of grounds. The incentives are clear: come to Britain and be fed, housed and given full healthcare and money to spend, all funded by the British taxpayer. If the Government were really serious about ending the small boats crisis, they would put a stop to asylum support and close the hotels as these petitions request. Those who have arrived here illegally would be sent back to their home country, if it is safe for them to go, or to a third country. Those who make the crossing in future should be detained and swiftly removed. Anybody who arrives here illegally must never be able to apply for asylum. This is a generous country, as many hon. Members have said this afternoon—remarkably so—but allowing access to Britain to tens and tens of thousands of young men who are willing to break our laws by coming here from the safety of France is not generosity. It is unfair, unaffordable, democratically illegitimate and dangerous. British taxpayers must not foot the bill for a crisis that they have voted to stop and that was created here in Westminster. We can end it, and we must. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) is right to say that Britain deserves better. Many hon. Members have mentioned that the previous Government failed to fix the crisis, which is true, but we have had a Labour Government for well over a year and it is their job to control our borders. Instead of doing any better, the situation has got worse. Will the Minister commit today to preventing those who arrive here illegally from applying for asylum? If not, will he please explain why not? Will he please commit today to a concrete timeline for the closure of asylum hotels, and to fully tracking, including in the welfare system, the lifetime costs of asylum claims?
A senior Chinese Government official invited Britain to “fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments” over the so-called super-embassy, but can the Minister shed light on what those obligations and commitments were? If he is going to say that no such commitments or obligations were offered, can we file that under another threat to this country by the Chinese?
Birmingham’s best band is, of course, Black Sabbath and it has counselled us that: “If you listen to fools, the mob rules.” This is a case of mob rule here. The Secretary of State has done a tremendous job of setting out the Government’s position. Will she review, while maintaining police independence—[Interruption.]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Back to the Sabs. Will the Secretary of State review the rules around sporting and entertainment events to make sure that this Government, and any future Government, are not rendered impotent in the face of the mob?
Schools on the Isle of Wight have some of the most serious challenges to levels of attainment. The Isle of Wight council is a small unitary authority with unique challenges in an area disconnected from the UK mainland. What will the Government do to better support education on the Isle of Wight, rather than resort to top-down education views that do not cater for the unique pressures faced by my constituents and our children?
Is my hon. Friend aware that Mauritius does not have a navy?
The Minister will try his best in a few minutes to defend this wholly indefensible Bill, but the public know what it is: they see it as an absolute sell-out. I suspect that the Government Members who are not filling the green Benches see it as a sell-out, too. That is why every single one of them failed to support the Bill in Committee, save for one brave or perhaps misguided Member. The public can see that they are a weak Government without the backbone necessary to stand up for the British public’s interests. They see this Bill as the sell-out that it is geopolitically, with the Government blind to the associated security risks, the sell-out that it is financially, with £35 billion going to a foreign Government, and the sell-out that it is of the Chagossian people, with their exclusion from negotiations.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask those questions—questions that have been asked of the Government time and again throughout this legislative process, but to which we simply have not had an answer. The Government seem to be blind to the risk of the craven withdrawal of influence from the Indo-Pacific region. This is more Jonathan Powell. He was, of course, the Prime Minister’s envoy, and the architect of the negotiation and the deal. The more I learn of Jonathan Powell, the more I realise that he seems to have a long-term instinct to downplay the threat from China—a threat in the Indian Ocean through this negotiated deal. Let us not forget that this is the same Jonathan Powell who now wears a different hat. He is now the National Security Adviser, and that, very unusually, was a political appointment. There is the question of his involvement—or perhaps it is not his involvement— in the collapse of the Chinese spying case. We are asked to believe that he was not involved in it, and that seems baffling as well.
I will endeavour to do so, Madam Chair. In fact, I will more than endeavour; I will do so. The reason this is relevant is that it speaks to new clause 5. While the Government have their head in the sand in respect of Mauritius’s relations with China—this is why it is important, Madam Chair—their first argument is that Mauritius will not be influenced by China, and is it not awful of us to suggest that it might be. I raised this question with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), back in October last year. I raised concerns that Mauritius was an ally of China and was open to influence from that country. With the disdain for which he is now famous, the right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed that. He said that Mauritius was not a Chinese ally because it was not part of the belt and road agreement in Africa. When we look at the relationship between China and Mauritius, however, we see that they have strong bilateral ties that go back to 1972, on economic co-operation and diplomatic support. China is the largest trading partner of Mauritius, which entered into a free trade agreement with China—the first such free trade agreement that China has entered into on the African continent. Perhaps it did not need to belong to the belt and road agreement in addition to its free trade agreement. There is influence expressed through investments, loans and grants. China built the international airport terminal for Mauritius. It has invested in the Jinfei economic and trade co-operation zone—a flagship belt and road initiative—and between 2000 and 2012 China also funded 47 development projects in Mauritius through loans and grants. So forgive me, Madam Chair, if I do not swallow the argument that Mauritius is wholly beyond the influence of China. The Government say, “If Mauritius is under the influence of China, don’t worry, because China don’t support this deal. China will be arguing against this deal.” We were told by the Prime Minister that China, Russia and Iran do not support the Chagos deal. Therefore, presumably my geopolitical security fears must be wrong. Well, Ministers have repeatedly been asked for the evidence that China does not support this deal, and none has been provided to date. If I am wrong on that, perhaps the Minister will say from the Dispatch Box where China has expressed its concerns about this deal. If you were to listen to the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius, even you, Madam Chair, would be forgiven for thinking that China is thoroughly in favour of this deal, because he sent “massive congratulations” to Mauritius and said that China “fully supports” Mauritius’s attempt to “safeguard national security.” That is the definition of doublespeak if it does not mean that China is wholly in favour of this deal and is celebrating it with Mauritius. I am not convinced, and neither are the Government.
I am not often compared to the noble Lord Cameron, but it is absolutely right that as the geopolitical environment changes, so should our policies. We on this side of the House are realists.
It is for exactly those reasons that we so desperately need new clause 5, which would require an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would mean that we are not caught with our heads in the sand again. We are beginning to build a picture of a slippery Government who are not being honest with the British people, not being honest about the legal justifications for this deal and not being honest about the security risk associated with the deal, and who are now being slippery about the financial cost as well. Again, the Prime Minister himself said that this slippery deal was going to cost the taxpayer £101 million a year for 99 years. He rounded that down from £10 billion, which my maths would have come to, to £3.4 billion. Through a freedom of information request, the Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that the actual cost is £34.7 billion. Did the Prime Minister just get the decimal point in the wrong place, or was it something more sinister? Madam Chair, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Government should no longer be trusted. They are changing their story in relation to this agreement, and they changed their story in relation to the China spy trial collapse. We need new clause 1 so that no payments can be made without direct approval from the House of Commons. At least then the Government would have to explain the real figures and be open to transparency and scrutiny. The public see through Labour’s deal, and they know a sell-out when they see one. The Opposition amendments and new clauses bring transparency to expose this sell-out from a weak Prime Minister without the backbone to stand up for Britain. No wonder Labour Members are about to vote against them.
The Minister has been asked by numerous people, not least by the shadow Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), when the Home Secretary knew that this case was going to collapse. We have not been given an answer. The Minister has also been asked by numerous people if the Home Secretary made representations; again, we have not been given an answer. These should be relatively straightforward questions with straightforward answers. Will the Minister answer those questions or give a reason as to why he cannot do so?
I am going to give the Minister a fifth chance to answer. Did the Home Secretary make representations when she discovered that the case was about to collapse—yes or no?
The Minister is new to the Dispatch Box, so perhaps we can forgive her for suggesting that the Conservatives cut the number of family hubs, since we invented them. Focusing on the issue of cost and moving away from primary schools, private providers are finding that the jobs tax and other hits are making it more and more difficult to pay the bills and ensure that that entitlement—which we all want to see given to parents—is delivered. Can I invite the hon. Lady to give any reflections from her early days as a Minister on how we can deliver that? Can she reach out to those in the Treasury and elsewhere to make them understand the ecosystem in which those providers sit?
I think the reason we are gathered here today—although I cannot see into your mind, Mr Speaker—is because of the story in The Sunday Times. That is why the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), asked this: when did the Home Secretary hear that the case might collapse? That was question No.1. Are we not owed an answer to that question? Did the Home Secretary, as The Sunday Times said, then make representations as to the evidence being as “strong as possible”? Did she or didn’t she? We are here because of that piece, Mr Speaker; I assume, although I cannot know your mind, that that is why you agreed to this urgent question. This Minister refuses, disgracefully, at that Dispatch Box to answer the question about the role of the Home Office in this spy scandal. Will the Minister now answer, not with his obfuscation and not with his flannel? Will he answer the question directly?
My right hon. Friend has highlighted the Prime Minister misleading—perhaps I have to say inadvertently misleading —us about the cost of this, when the Government Actuary’s Department has shown that it is £35 billion. More than that, he was suggesting in his press conference that China, Russia and others—
I bow to you, Ms Nokes. Having misrepresented—I think I am allowed to say that—
Oh, I cannot say “misrepresented”. Having inadvertently confused the £35 billion that is actually going out with the £3.5 billion he claimed was going out, the Prime Minister, equally inadvertently, Ms Nokes, made out that China, Iran and Russia were in the column—he used the word “column”—of those opposing this deal, although I think each and every one of them came out publicly to say how much they welcomed it. Can my right hon. Friend share any knowledge about that with us?
The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech on the Chagossians and marine protected areas, as well as the need for transparency. But it is not just about transparency. What I have not heard from him, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, is any sense of outrage at the very fact that we are to pay out £35 billion for sovereign British territory on which we have arguably the most important base in the whole Indian ocean.
I refer the Committee to my interests, having observed the Mauritian elections last year as a guest of the Mauritius Labour party. It is hard not to feel a little bit sorry for the beleaguered Minister at the Dispatch Box today, sent to defend something that is so clearly a betrayal of this country and its interests. Out of the grand total of 400-plus Labour Members of Parliament in this House, he was backed by just one—the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)—who sat with his face glued to his iPad, reading the words put there by Lord knows who, and who struggled so much when he finally took an intervention and had to speak off the cuff. Indeed, he has fled now, doubtless to lick his wounds. Not one single other of those 400 Government MPs wanted to come here and defend this Bill. The Minister is in fact a decent man, and he will know that this Bill has no defence and brings no benefit to this country. Last week, too, we had a Minister sent out to answer for the China spy case. He had never spoken at the Dispatch Box before; it was his very first outing, but he was thought the best person to defend the Prime Minister’s blushes by knowing nothing about the topic in hand and denying things—without lying—by dint of ignorance. It was indeed a triumph, of sorts. Armando Iannucci and “The Thick of It” cast could not script something as cynical, empty and damaging as this Government’s behaviour in so many spheres. As we can see in the amendments and new clauses before us, which will doubtless all be rejected by the Minister, amidst the betrayal of first-time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers—
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was setting the context for the amendments to the Bill that we are rightly proposing to ensure that the Government report back on the money that they plan to spend and to ensure that the Mauritius taxpayer is not the only taxpayer to benefit from this. As I say, the amendments and new clauses come amidst the betrayal of those first-time buyers, farmers, small businesses, special needs children, pensioners, young workers, restaurants and pubs, and amidst the expense grifting, tax dodging, scandals and resignations packed into 14 busy months. Amidst all that, this Chagos sell-out is still a stand-out disaster for this country, and the Ministers on the Front Bench know it. That is why not a single one of their 400-odd colleagues—bar one, glued to his iPad—has been prepared to come to this Chamber tonight and speak in favour of the Bill. That is why there is no provision to allow a vote on the £3.4 billion—sorry, not £3.4 billion; the £35 billion that has now been set out. As the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rightly says, that is based on a rather small c conservative estimate of the interest, but that is what the Government themselves have said it is likely to cost. This Labour Government decided to give away UK sovereign territory and the location of a critically important military base to another country, and to pay £35 billion for the privilege.