Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions
If neighbourhood plans are as important as the Minister says, why are the Government withdrawing funding?
5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q12. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to smash the gangs. He said he would reduce small boat crossings. He said he would close asylum hotels. Why are all these issues going wrong?
- Hansard source
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
We should thank Sir Brian for his report and carefully consider his recommendations. Criminals already get a one-third discount for an early guilty plea, and the idea that that should be increased to 40% risks undermining trust in the criminal justice system by victims. Jury trials are a centuries old cornerstone of the British justice system. The creation of an intermediate court to save £35 million is not worth it, when we have 81 empty courtrooms, and judges available and ready to sit. We need to build capacity and make the jury system work.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
The hon. Member makes an incredibly powerful and telling point about the disincentive of trying to get into work for people who have a varying and fluctuating condition, such as MS. That is an unanswerable point and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response. Does he agree with me that in conversations that the Minister has with what we are too lazily inclined to refer to as “the disabled community”, unless we are able to break down disabled groups into those who have a permanent condition and those who have a fluctuating condition, and to individually tailor responses to that, it will be a missed opportunity to get this right?
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady is putting the cart before the horse, as are the Government. You do your review first, you find out what it says, and you tailor your policies and your response to it. Is that not the best way of making policy? This half-baked idea satisfies no one.
- Hansard source
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown court bench division and related sentencing changes.
- Hansard source
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
All of us agree that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is so important to get control of the court backlog. No one pretends that this is straightforward, but the Government have made the crisis worse. The backlog is at a record high, and accelerating, with 750 cases being added every month. Sir Brian Leveson’s review rightly acknowledges that we must increase the number of court sitting days. We thank him for his work and welcome many of his recommendations. However, it cannot be right to give another sentencing discount to those convicted of crimes such as burglary and stalking. That could see criminals serve as little as a fifth of their sentence, when combined with the Gauke review—20% of a sentence served. Is that justice for victims? Out of court settlements for drug dealers and thieves mean that they will not even get a criminal record. It makes a mockery of the justice system. Just as concerning is the proposal to scrap jury trials in many cases. The report admits that this will have only a “limited effect” on the backlog. It will save just £31 million—0.2% of the Department’s budget. As the report states, there is no limit to the cases for which jury trials could be scrapped. This is a slippery slope towards abolishing jury trials altogether. Jury trials have been a central part of our constitution for centuries—in Magna Carta, and indeed before it. They are a gift that we have given to the world. To throw them away so casually shows a total disregard for our constitution, and for such limited benefit. It seems that too many on the Government Benches want to scrap jury trials regardless of the backlog, because they do not trust the British public’s instincts on justice. They say that judges know best; we say that the public know best. It does not have to be this way. The Government must take up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer of more sitting days. Will the Minister rule out yet another sentencing cut for criminals? Will she rule out letting drug dealers and thieves avoid even a criminal record? Does she accept that scrapping jury trials is a disgraceful and unnecessary rejection of one of our country’s proudest and most ancient liberties?
- Hansard source
Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate. He is a champion for his community, and I know that his constituents will be grateful to him for standing up for them. Both my hon. Friend and I are in an unenviable position as two examples of MPs whose constituencies are set to be paved over under Labour’s new house building algorithm. He and I both have a Liberal Democrat council, and I know that his council has lacked an updated local plan since 2019. His council may not be engaged in speculative development itself, but my council has given developers a blank cheque in Hinckley and Bosworth to build at will, while nearby Labour-run Leicester city will be spared for their failures by having their brownfield site targets cut. My hon. Friend is right to pick up on what is, as I have called it in this House before, a politically gerrymandering algorithm put forward by this Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said, I find it really surprising that there are no Labour Back Benchers here today. We have seen housing targets being massively increased in rural areas, but in urban centres where the infrastructure already exists, housing numbers and requirements are going down. I think that shows that colleagues in the Minister’s party who represent rural areas, as my hon. Friend said, are staying quiet because of the housing boom that they will have to explain to their constituents, while Labour MPs in urban centres are celebrating, or quite frankly embarrassed by, the reduction that this Government are allowing their councils to get away with. I know of some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has with his Lib Dem council. Like me, I am sure that he will recognise that in many Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflets going out on people’s doorsteps there is an excuse as to why development is going forward in his constituency. But it is not the fault of the Lib Dem council, who make the decisions in the first place to grant planning permission; it is either the Tory county or the national Government at the time forcing them to make this huge sacrifice—that is why they are building across my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), was a living embodiment of that example today by saying that it was not the national housing targets that were forcing our councils to build, and then excusing his own councils for not putting forward local plans that would stop that speculative development in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth will know that Liberal Democrat councils are in themselves speculative, which is one of the reasons they are failing their residents in planning going forward across this country.
- Hansard source
Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions
Again, the Liberal Democrats need to be clear about what they are promising the country. The hon. Gentleman again says that targets are the problem and that councils have difficulty in meeting them, but in the main Chamber his party is calling for more national housing targets. With all due respect, if a Liberal council in Hinckley and Bosworth is not delivering on a local plan, that is his party’s responsibility. Doing so would protect that constituency from the very targets that Liberal Democrats are bemoaning. The Liberal Democrats need to be clear on where they stand on national targets versus delivering locally for the people they claim to represent.
- Hansard source
Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions
I am happy to congratulate any council controlled by any party if it has a local plan process going through, but the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham, who just said that local plans cannot be delivered because of housing targets that put pressure on local councils. Dorset is an example of a Lib Dem council that has taken its responsibilities seriously, so I suggest that the Lib Dem spokesman has a meeting with the leader of that council.
- Hansard source
Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions
We have probably exhausted this line of debate, but, again, we have an example on the record of a Liberal council, Hinckley and Bosworth, that has not delivered on a local plan. Liberal Democrats in the main Chamber are asking for more national housing targets, but here in Westminster Hall they are claiming that targets are the reason why Lib Dem administrations cannot deliver local plans. We will let the record stand. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I were proud to serve under the previous Conservative Government, which built on the coalition’s achievements in introducing the Localism Act 2011. In that landmark legislation, we took bold and progressive steps to empower local communities. We made it a statutory requirement for local authorities to support and advise communities on neighbourhood planning. That was not just a policy, but a principle that local people should have a direct say in shaping the future of their towns, villages and neighbourhoods. As I am sure colleagues are aware, schedule 9 to the Act created a framework through which parish and town councils, neighbourhood forums and community organisations—in other words, local voices—could lead the charge in designating local development plans, not as spectators, but as active participants in the planning system. District and county councils may hold formal planning powers—as Conservatives, we rightly believe that power should be delegated to the local level—but, if we are to build places that people are proud to live in, we must also make sure that the views of residents are heard, respected and acted on. Parish and town councils should never be relegated to the role of rubber-stamping planning decisions; they must be central to shaping the development of their local areas. Villages know best. All my hon. Friends have talked about how villages in their constituencies want to build and want an active say in how their villages are shaped. I say to the Minister that this Government’s long-standing position has eroded planning committees, the rights of local councillors at parish, district and county level, and the ability of councillors to make decisions on behalf of local people. I, like many others, welcomed the strengthening of neighbourhood planning in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to those plans in decision making. The introduction of neighbourhood priority statements was a practical and positive step forward, giving parish councils and neighbourhood forums another mechanism to shape local policy, with a duty on local authorities to listen. Sadly, that progress has been halted. Since taking office just over a year ago, this Government has made their mission clear: to sideline local people and centralise control. Through changes to the national planning policy framework, their smoke-and-mirrors “grey belt” policy and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, they are systematically removing local voices from the process. This is not reform—it is a power grab, and the message is clear: the future of our towns, villages and green spaces is being determined in Whitehall, not in our communities. That is a betrayal of the very principle of localism. When local voices are ignored and planning decisions are imposed from the centre, trust in the system is eroded and disillusionment grows. We are becoming accustomed to disappointment when it comes to this Government, but to see, without so much as a ministerial statement, that Ministers have pulled funding for neighbourhood plans is another mark on their scorecard. This decision poses a serious setback for the principle of localism and undermines a widely celebrated initiative that has empowered more than 2,500 communities, with over 1,000 neighbourhood plans successfully passed at referendum. Parish and town councils have historically played a vital role in this process, driving forward locally led planning that reflects the needs and aspirations of their communities. Neighbourhood plans have been a massively successful policy. Across the country, from small villages to growing towns, communities have embraced the opportunity to shape their future, but the Government’s plans threaten to undo these successes. Not only are they centralising power, but, with looming unitarisation, we will see even more erosion of these local voices, as these bigger local government councils will not have the time—nor, likely, the inclination—to bother with designating development areas, leaving already overdeveloped communities at risk of yet more reckless building. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has been a consistent and passionate advocate for neighbourhood planning. He has highlighted the benefits of the process in this Chamber on many occasions, and rightly so. I commend him for his speech today, in which he outlined many of the problems that local councils face and the pressure they are under. This erosion of the right and responsibility of local people to have a say over local decisions must stop. We will continue to be a constructive but challenging Opposition on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I urge the Minister to speak to the Secretary of State about giving back power to local communities.
- Hansard source
Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. From his language—he said that this was not a decision taken lightly—this is clearly another victim of the Prime Minister’s U-turn on welfare and the Chancellor now having to find money. Can he not see that there will be a problem? The simple logistics of getting together a local neighbourhood plan with no funding, including consultation—parish councils are not paid, but are often the most trusted of the councils—will mean a reduction in the number of neighbourhood plans and consultations. Does he not see that that is a bad thing for our villages across this country?
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity, which he always shows in this Chamber. Based on the poverty assessment, he now says that 50,000 children will be uplifted and taken out of poverty. Given that the decision was taken because of the fiscal impact of the Chancellor’s Budget, I asked him last week about the £5 billion of savings that then became £2.5 billion. He then said that he had not costed his decisions, which would have put an extra 150,000 children into poverty. Will he tell the House how much extra the measures on which he has capitulated will cost the taxpayer?
- Hansard source
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
Over the weekend the Prime Minister rather pathetically told the BBC that he was “a hard bastard”. I think members of the public would find it surprising that letting criminals out of prison early is a way of showing that he is. The Minister has said, not unreasonably, that she wants time to consider Sir Brian’s recommendations, but it is the case that some things are clearcut. Will she take this opportunity to rule out reducing sentences by 40% for criminals who plead guilty?
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
I call the final Back-Bench speaker, David Pinto-Duschinsky, after which I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Order. Before the hon. Member makes her intervention, will colleagues make sure that their language is parliamentary and respectful?
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.
- Hansard source
Engagements
I echo the Prime Minister’s sentiments about the horrific terrorist attack of 7 July. I was pleased to be at the commemoration service on Monday. In particular, our thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives, those who had to go on without their loved ones. I would like to pay tribute to Lord Tebbit, who died yesterday at the age of 94. He was a man of iron integrity and conviction, who, by his efforts, helped to save our country from the chaos of the 1970s. We all owe him so much. In its manifesto last year, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance and not to increase VAT. Does the Prime Minister still stand by his promises?
- Hansard source
Engagements
It is rare—[Interruption.] It is rare that the Prime Minister is able to give a clear answer, but I am glad that he has done so now. He also promised—in fact, he boasted—that he had solved the doctors strike. Only a Prime Minister who was so weak would give doctors a 28% pay rise—only for us now to see them vote to strike again. He folds in every negotiation and claims it is a triumph. [Interruption.] Yes, he does. We saw more promises at the Budget: the Chancellor promised that she would lift the freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds, because, in her words, they “hurt working people”. Is that still Government policy?
- Hansard source
Engagements
There was no clear answer there. The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister fail to rule out freezing tax thresholds. He could say yes to the first question—he could promise—but could not this time. What does this mean? He is talking about record investment and more jobs. We know that people are losing their jobs; unemployment has gone up every single month of Labour’s year in office. What does the issue of tax thresholds mean? It means that under Labour, millions of our poorest pensioners face being dragged into income tax for the first time ever. Does the Prime Minister think it is right that struggling pensioners should face a retirement tax?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Investors are fleeing the country. The Prime Minister says he will stick to his manifesto promises, but Labour promised not to put a tax on working people and then we got the jobs tax, and all we have seen are jobs disappearing. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised “not a penny more on your council tax”. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that council tax bills will now rise at their fastest rate in 20 years. Will the Prime Minister admit that under him council tax is set to soar?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister still does not understand, so I am going to make it very simple for him: this is a mess of his own making—he should not be asking how we would clean it up. The fact is this Government raised national insurance through the jobs tax, and that is why they have to put up council tax. The truth is that his catastrophic Budget has created a domino effect that he cannot now control. We on the Conservative Benches know that you cannot tax your way to growth, but now he is flirting—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all muttering, but I remember that Budget. They were laughing and cheering; they had no idea of the mess that they were creating. They should go and explain to their constituents why unemployment is going up. What is more worrying is that now the Prime Minister is flirting with Neil Kinnock’s demand for a wealth tax. Let us be honest about what that means: it would be a tax on all our constituents’ savings, on their houses and on their pensions. It would be a tax on aspiration. Will the Prime Minister rule this out?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister says that he has stabilised the economy. Has he spoken to any farmers recently? It is time for him to take responsibility for the mess that he is making. He has been in office for a year, and all we see is him congratulating himself on what a fantastic job he has done. [Interruption.] Nobody out there believes it—not even Labour Members. What a weak cheer! He is congratulating himself, but we can compare records. He talks about the fastest growing economy. We left him the fastest growing economy of the G7. We cut the deficit in every year until the pandemic, and we got inflation down to 2%. On his watch, taxes are up, unemployment is up, inflation is up and this weak Prime Minister has been forced into a series of chaotic U-turns. Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that our economy is being eroded under Labour: doctors strikes; tax bombshells; the wealthy leaving in droves. Is it not the truth that, under him, he is dragging us back to the 1970s?
- Hansard source
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
The jury system is essential to protect us against oppressive judges, malicious individuals—sometimes malicious police officers—or even Governments. The Minister speaks of the most serious cases. Is it not a fact that the most serious impact on individuals may result not necessarily from what she may regard as the most serious cases, but from any case that goes to court? The impact on the individual can totally change the course of that person’s life, even if the charge is not as serious as the Minister might consider it to be. It can be devastating to the person’s family life, career, or any other aspect of his or her future.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
I rise primarily to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). However, I would like to begin by addressing the amendments brought forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We were first presented with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in June. Then, after being held over a barrel by her Back Benchers, the Secretary of State returned to the House with something quite different. Then, at the eleventh hour on Second Reading, just last week, amendments 4, 5 and 10 were hastily drawn up. Why? It was to cobble together enough support to get something that resembles welfare reform over the line. Only a Labour Government could pledge to reduce the cost of something and end up doing the exact opposite. The people who will pay the price for this additional welfare spending are our constituents who get up early, work hard and pay their dues. New clause 12 and the associated amendments are key to fairness in the system, key to protecting the social contract that underpins our society and, most importantly, key to balancing the books to support our economy. There is no way we can continue to have a situation where individuals receive their PIP payments after attending only a virtual session. There is no way we can continue to have a spiralling welfare bill driven by the over-medicalisation of conditions such as OCD and anxiety. And finally, there is no way we can continue to hand out benefits willy-nilly to those who have come to the United Kingdom without any means of supporting themselves. These are not fringe views. They are widely supported by the public, by working men and women across the country who do the right thing and who increasingly ask, “Why are we footing a bill for a system we no longer believe in?” The social contract is fraying, and the blame lies not with the public but with the state in allowing the system to drift and grow to unsustainable levels.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but I am not going to withdraw the comment I made, because there are people in that situation—
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
The social contract is fraying, as I said. When my constituent Nick, who works hard for the money he earns and pays into system, walks through his town centre, he asks himself, “What is the point? Why am I working harder than ever when the system rewards those that often don’t?” These amendments matter. They are not unfair; they are principled. They would ensure that the welfare system remained strong for those who truly need it, and fair for those who fund it. The hard-working British public expect us to act, and unfortunately, if the Government do not support our amendments today, they will be letting the public down.
- Hansard source
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
Here we go again. Labour always talks tough on crime and always goes soft. The Minister talked about David Gauke as one of our own, as if that was some defence—I assure her that I probably have more in common with her than I do with David Gauke. That is not a good way to show off credentials on being tough on crime. I have seen at first hand where the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service work together to cut through all the bureaucracy and backlogs to get tough on crime. In Lancashire, 23 organised crime gang members were being taken off the streets every single week through Op Warrior, with many remanded straight into prison and their cases going through the courts. I plead with the Minister to rule out as soon as possible any of the measures recommended that would see those organised crime gang members potentially not even getting a criminal record.
- Hansard source
Early Years Providers: Government Support
I will give an extra two minutes to the shadow Minister if she wants them, given that we have a little bit of time.
- Hansard source
Glaucoma Awareness
The shadow Minister needs to be brief. He has had five minutes, and I gave six minutes to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I will give the shadow Minister another 30 seconds.
- Hansard source
Glaucoma Awareness
To be clear, it is important that the Chair is both neutral and fair in the distribution of time.
- Hansard source
Draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025
I declare an interest as a Surrey Member of Parliament, and my constituency of Spelthorne is the northernmost borough of Surrey. Can I just confirm whether the changes that we are making today still require Spelthorne borough council to give permission for compulsory purchase, when we have handed those powers to Surrey county council?
- Hansard source
Draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025
Can the Minister outline for the Committee, where these powers will sit, once councils have gone through devolution talks and appointed metro mayors? Will they still sit with the unitary councils, or will they go to the metro mayor? Can the Minister explain where the powers will sit when they get a new devolution agreement?
- Hansard source
Early Years Providers: Government Support
Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this interesting and thought-provoking debate. It is nice to see a degree of unanimity across the Chamber about the importance of early years high-quality provision. Let me first deal with NICs, because that issue has been raised by a number of hon. Members, not least the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); the Lib Dem spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller); and the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). We know the impact that it is having on nursery settings up and down the country. It is not right that they are treated differently from the rest of the public sector, given that so much of their provision is entirely state-funded. The impact of the changes has been talked about in very clear terms in this debate. It has been described as “catastrophic” by the Early Years Alliance. We know that 52% of settings are likely to reduce the number of early entitlement places on offer, and that the changes will result in fees going up for parents. That is not what anybody here wants. I know that the Minister understands that, so in his bids to the Treasury for the upcoming Budget, will he ask—as I am sure he has already—that more relief is given to early years for the provision of NICs? One of the themes discussed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell)—in what I hope she does not mind me saying was a really excellent speech—and by the Lib Dem spokeswoman, was outreach to disadvantaged areas with the new offer. When we had the offer for two-year-olds, which was just limited by income, the take-up was not what we wanted. Now there is a wider offer, that outreach will be important. I hope that the Minister will speak to that. There is also a link between areas of disadvantage and children who are under the care of a social worker. What more will be done to make sure that social workers are aware of the provision in their local areas, and can direct families who may need it to that provision? That is very important. We know it may provide relief for the parents and a higher quality placement for the individual child. It would be very helpful if the Minister could come back on that today. I want to talk about school readiness, because I absolutely welcome the Government’s focus in that area, which is very important. As I mentioned in my response to the Education Secretary’s statement the other day, the target we have is for the end of reception. It is therefore not really measuring school readiness as such; it is measuring the work of brilliant reception teachers, up and down the country. That is not actually what we want to measure. We want to measure the things that the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman talked about: trying to get children ready to go to school. That would reduce the pressure on primary school teachers, rather than increase it. I am sure that the Government’s intention is not to increase it, but it is what will happen as a result of that target. We need to try to get those young people ready to learn and to go to school, because it makes such a difference to their ability to learn. I hope that the Minister will consider that as part of the school readiness work that he has going on at the moment. As the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, I would like to talk more about screens in the context of school readiness. The Government have brought forward a partnership for a national year of reading, which I think we can all agree is very positive, but the one thing that is driving the decline in reading in this country is overuse of screens by young people. I know that the Education Committee has done some brilliant work on this issue. We have to make sure that parents know that too much screen time is just not good for their children. We know that 25% of three and four-year-olds have phones. That is that is not good for them. It is delaying speech development, reading and socialisation, and that is being compounded by the reception baseline assessment now being done on a screen, which implies that children need to be able to use a screen by the time they get to reception. A recent trip to a primary school alerted me to this. The reception teacher said, “I used to ask them whether they could split this orange apart or not, to be able to check their hand-eye co-ordination. Now it’s all done on a screen.” It is just wrong. If we want a change in school readiness—all Members present are interested in that; that is why we are at this debate—we need an increased focus on reducing screen use by young children, because parents too often just do not know that it is bad for their child. They are trying to do their best, and they think it is fantastic that they can give them a screen with some games on, but actually they are stopping them from being able to play. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest and others talked about the fact that play is crucial to early development, and we impede that by giving screens to children. This debate has been really interesting. There is a degree of unanimity on the direction that we need to go in. I hope that some progress can be made on funding for early years provision and that we can try to drive up the usage of the free offers in disadvantaged areas. We need to shift the focus on school readiness to what we need to help parents do to get their child ready for school. I hope that, together, we can shift the emphasis and try to get screens out of young people’s lives, because that is a single thing that we can do to help them with their mental health and their school readiness.
- Hansard source
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
Yesterday, the Bar Council facilitated a useful conversation with local barristers in the south-west. I think they have some reservations, but I will leave them to make representations. One thing that they did say, which I urge the Minister to feed into the provisions of the second half of the report, is about the efficiency of the forensics service and the transfer mechanism to bring prisoners into the courts. The delays and inefficiencies there, and the contracts that are laid that set out those services, can have a material impact on the efficiency of the court service. I urge the Minister to make sure that that is focused on, because that could have a massive impact. I have grave concerns about where things are. Finally, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I allowed—against advice—Alex Chalk and his predecessor to make some capital-to-revenue switches in their budgets to deal with the urgency of this problem. I hope that is helpful to the Minister in her negotiations with the Treasury going forward.
- Hansard source
Supporting Scottish Agriculture
14. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on supporting Scottish agriculture.
- Hansard source
Supporting Scottish Agriculture
We Conservatives were vilified when we pointed out that the vindictive changes to farming reliefs were going to damage jobs in rural Scotland. The Scotland Office conducted its own roundtable with agriculture figures. Will the Minister share the results of that with the House, the Scottish Government and, crucially, whoever the Deputy Prime Minister decides will be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer?
- Hansard source
Spending Review 2025: Economic Growth
7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the spending review 2025 on economic growth in Scotland.
- Hansard source
Spending Review 2025: Economic Growth
The jobs tax has decimated business confidence and has seen unemployment rise, and now—along with the Budget blow to Scotch whisky, the attack on family farms and the undermining of the oil and gas industry—the Scottish Hospitality Group has slated the spending review, saying it “does absolutely nothing to support the hospitality sector”. Will the Secretary of State work with the Chancellor to undo the damage her Budget and her spending review have inflicted on family farms, Scotch whisky, the oil and gas industry, hospitality, entertainment and business confidence in Scotland?
- Hansard source
Spending Review 2025: Scottish Public Services
The spending review came off the back of last year’s autumn Budget, which hit businesses in my constituency in north-east Scotland very hard, whether it was family businesses and farms with the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, or the extension of and increase in the energy profits levy hitting investment in our vital oil and gas sector. What conversations is the Secretary of State having actively with the Treasury to ensure that north-east Scotland does not have to pay the price for this Government’s decisions again next year?