Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentMike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    I think that having control of an independent trade policy where we can get those deals in the interests of the British economy—whether the CPTPP or the trade agreements with India or the Gulf Co-operation Council—is an advantage of being outside the customs union and having taken back that control. Tying ourselves to an economic bloc that is fast declining as a proportion of world trade and locking ourselves back behind the common tariff walls of the most sluggish economic continent on earth would come with a cost. Why on earth would a proud global maritime trading nation choose to jump off the international express train just to squeeze on to a continental stopping service that is running at least 40 minutes late? <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em>

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentMike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    We are constantly told by the doom-mongers that Brexit is somehow the sole author of our national economic woes, but the empirical evidence tells a vastly different story. Recent analysis by the Centre for Policy Studies shows that, while the initial realignment did involve transition friction, our private sector has shown remarkable dynamism, with productivity increasing by roughly 30% over the past decade. The real drag anchoring <span id="37WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="37WH"></span>British growth is inside our own state apparatus. Public sector productivity has flatlined, an affliction that is manufactured right here in Westminster and Whitehall that has nothing at all to do with whether we sit within the European Union. While the petitioners are at least refreshingly transparent about wanting full membership, the Government’s approach seems to depend on the audience. Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box with hands on hearts repeating their mantra that they respect the referendum, but that is not the message that we have heard from Labour Back Benchers today. Ministers promise us that there will be no membership of the single market and no freedom of movement, yet watch what they actually do. They tiptoe around European capitals, hoping that if they quietly sign us up to dynamic alignment across agriculture, energy and carbon standards, nobody on the street will notice that they have signed away our national autonomy. That is not a coherent foreign policy. It is surrender on an instalment plan. Alongside the burdens and restrictions, being a full member of the EU did give us a vote, a voice and a veto. Being an independent sovereign state gives speed, regulatory agility and democratic accountability. But the Government’s strategy delivers the worst of all worlds: total regulatory submission with none of the say. It flips William Hague’s famous slogan; it is to be not in Europe but still run by Europe. It is the political equivalent of paying full price for an all-inclusive hotel and choosing to sleep on a bench in the car park.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentMike Wood

    Rejoining the EU

    No, I am finishing. The British people did not vote in 2016 for half measures, or to put their democracy into reverse gear. The fundamental principle at stake was entirely straightforward: the laws governing the people of this country should be made and unmade by representatives who the British public can elect—and, crucially, fire—at the ballot box. The duty of this House is not to resurrect the bitter constitutional gridlock of the past, or to indulge the fantasy of a cost-free return to Brussels. Our duty is to use our hard-won independence to cut unnecessary bureaucracy, to back British innovation and to trade freely with all corners of the globe. His Majesty’s official Opposition will not support the petition and will fiercely resist any attempt to pull this country back into the European Union, whether through the front door or the back.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentMark Pritchard

    Employment Support: Young People

    The Secretary of State talks about jobs hubs. May I gently say to him that the best jobs hub of all is a business that is expanding and that the best youth hub of all is a business taking on apprentices? He mentions a wide range of schemes to try to get young people back into work. In The Wrekin, youth unemployment has risen by 27.8% in the last 12 months alone. A lot of the schemes are in urban areas. What is he going to do for my young constituents who live in rural and semi-rural counties such as Shropshire?

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentMark Pritchard

    International Update

    I thank the Prime Minister for his steadfast support for Ukraine and his early visit. However, next year there may be a potential problem for Europe—I see the Europe Minister and the Defence Secretary are in their places—because the rise of National Rally in France and Alternative für Deutschland in Germany might mean that support for NATO starts to fragment in some European nations. Will the Prime Minister work with the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor on defence planning and a defence budget should the United Kingdom need to do more for Ukraine in those circumstances?

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentMark Pritchard

    National Security

    I put on record my thanks to Counter Terrorism Policing West Midlands and West Mercia police’s special branch for all they are doing in their regions and areas for all Members, across parties. In reply to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who is no longer in her place, the Home Secretary mentioned that the system was “fragmented”. In her statement, she also said, “We are also building a specialist mission in Counter Terrorism Policing to disrupt state threats”. The Home Secretary will know that the Security Service—she knows what branch—plays a major part in counter-espionage and counter-terrorism. We also have counter-terror police and the National Crime Agency. Given that, as she said, more deniable proxy attacks are happening <span id="72" class="column-number" data-column-number="72"></span>through criminal gangs, is this not creating another silo, at a time when we need to break down the silos and have all these agencies and forces working together?

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    International Update

    I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, to which I listened carefully. In it, he said, “our resolve to defend…ourselves is absolute”.<span id="43" class="column-number" data-column-number="43"></span> However, at that Dispatch Box on another occasion, he said that national security “cannot come at the expense of social security.”<span id="vol790_col1036" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="1036" data-volume-number="790" data-external-id="27366963-96CC-4751-A325-AA825B94E732">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 9 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1036.]</span> Bearing in mind that our allies and our enemies are listening to our proceedings, could he make it crystal clear to the world that he has no higher priority than the national security of the United Kingdom?

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentKit Malthouse

    International Update

    During the last couple of hours, I have heard the Prime Minister talk about three of the four pillars of our national defence—our military, our resilience and our alliances—but he has yet to mention the crucial fourth pillar, which is the importance of the international rules-based order and the institutions that underpin it. Is he going to take any active steps to defend the International Criminal Court and the UK citizens who work there against the American sanctions that have been placed on it?

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    The Minister mentioned that fertiliser will be affected by the CBAM. Farmers are rightly concerned about how this will impact them. Some farming organisations have indicated that this might increase the price of fertiliser by up to £70 a tonne, which will obviously have a big impact on the price of food. When will the rate for fertiliser be set, and when will it be announced?

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    The shadow Minister’s excellent speech is making it very clear why farmers and other part of industry are concerned about the regulations. In response to my earlier intervention, the Minister said that he would be telling farmers the rates “very shortly”. Frankly, that is not good enough. Does the shadow Minister agree that farmers need that certainty now? They might not be able to get a definitive figure, but they need to know the date by which the rate will be announced.

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    The hon. Lady is right to identify the big challenges that farmers are facing. The last thing they need is up to £70 or £80 a tonne being added to the cost of fertiliser. Surely the Liberal Democrats should oppose the regulations until we get some clarity from the Government as to what the financial impact will be.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    The Minister will be aware of the comments of Paul Tompkins, the NFU deputy president, who has highlighted that adding a CBAM to fertiliser will add significantly to the costs and growing pressures that farm businesses already face. What discussions has the Minister had with the National Farmers’ Union about the issue and specifically about a date when farmers will find out the rate that is to be applied?

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    Welfare Budget

    <Question HRSContentId="{D4ED13FD-F47C-4166-A7F1-953271BF50D2}">4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{64DABFC5-D42A-43BD-ACA0-7FBE8A4112D9}">What estimate he has made of what the total welfare budget will be at the end of this Parliament.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    Welfare Budget

    The Minister has just confirmed that the benefits bill will continue to grow. He also seems to have confirmed the Prime Minister’s position that national security “cannot come at the expense of social security.”<span id="vol790_col1036" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="1036" data-volume-number="790" data-external-id="27366963-96CC-4751-A325-AA825B94E732">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 9 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1036.]</span> Is that correct?

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will oppose this legislation, but not because of the detail we have heard today, complex though it is, and which has been a long time coming, emerging inch by painful inch. Rather, we oppose this legislation in the round. The Conservatives’ intention is to scrap the carbon border adjustment mechanism as well as the emissions trading scheme. Committing to fully scrapping the carbon tax regime, the Leader of the Opposition said that it was “madness” to pursue the goal of preserving the environment by “killing British industry and fatally weakening our national resilience.” We are not alone. Many industry voices agree. Steel is one of the sectors most affected by CBAM. Frank Aaskov, the director of climate change policy at UK Steel, has said: “The UK Government is knowingly driving towards deindustrialisation with its carbon border policy, while ignoring repeated, evidence-based warnings from industry. As currently structured, the policy will favour overseas competitors over domestic steel producers, undermining investment decisions being taken now on decarbonisation.” The Government’s ruinously expensive steel strategy—apparently keeping blast furnaces alight with bundles of taxpayers’ £20 notes—is in meltdown. CBAM is another hammer blow for this foundational industry, as with cement, chemicals and aluminium. Reindustrialisation is simply not possible while this Government inflict punitive energy costs on business and pursue a net zero agenda that is more concerned with green dogma than real-world practicality. There is much talk from Government about food security being national security, but our pivotal agricultural industry is alarmed by CBAM and, as we have heard, <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>by its impact on fertiliser. The umbrella body, the Agricultural Industries Confederation, warns that the fertiliser market operates across highly integrated European supply chains. The current lack of clarity risks creating unnecessary administrative burdens, pricing uncertainty and potential distortions between UK, EU and third-country suppliers. Industry estimates show that CBAM could add between £70 and £100 a tonne to the cost of fertiliser. That is a huge additional burden on an industry in which margins are already tight.

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. All businesses need certainty, and farmers are no different. They need to buy things in advance, so they need to know how much things will cost. It is about going back to the foundations. The additional cost of fertiliser is likely to link directly to higher food prices, which will affect all our constituents in a cost of living crisis. What will be the impact of the measure on businesses? The explanatory memorandum to the regulations says that CBAM “will have a significant impact on...10,000 businesses importing CBAM goods into the UK.” As with every regulation, small businesses will face higher administrative costs relative to their turnover. However, the Government have not published a new impact assessment alongside the instrument. Could the Minister tell us why not? How can the Government claim that the tax information and impact note from November 2025 remains accurate, when we all know how much more precarious the situation for business is now than it was a year ago? Across industry and businesses big and small, warning lights are flashing on dashboards. CBAM is a wrong-headed attempt at a solution to the failures of the carbon tax. The solution cannot be to add yet more burdens on Britain’s businesses to try to balance out the damage already done. The solution is to tackle the problem at source: to axe the carbon tax entirely, and the emissions trading scheme and CBAM with it, and to end the deindustrialisation of our country. This is the time to drive industry forward, not to hamstring it with additional costs that are deleterious and damaging to its very survival. The Government should think again.

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Topical Questions

    In Scotland, benefit crime has effectively been decriminalised, and the Scottish Conservatives have raised the case of people being coached on how to fiddle the system. When I have asked the DWP about it, the reply has basically been, “Nothing to do with us, guv.” Is there not a moral imperative to do something about that issue?

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Welfare Budget

    The number of children between the ages of six and 11 with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has grown sixfold, which means that in the years ahead there will be a surge in the number of applications for personal independence payment as children become adults. Even the Secretary of State accepts that owing to the growing number of children receiving disability living allowance, most will be transferred to PIP. Does the Minister agree that it is time to end a <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>cash payments benefit system for people with more minor conditions, and ensure that those with genuine needs receive the therapeutic support that will enable them to learn, work and contribute to the economy?

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    International Update

    For the fourth time of asking, in any negotiations with the EU, will the Prime Minister rule out a return to freedom of movement?

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Employment Support: Young People

    Every DWP Question Time, Labour Members dutifully line up to give the welfare Secretary a chance to make it look like he is doing something about the youth unemployment crisis—a crisis of their own making. Their jobs tax and their unemployment Act have killed 300,000 jobs, hitting young people hardest. We have had enough talk about hubs and schemes. Young people tell me they want real jobs. That is why we will halve national insurance for 21 to 24-year-olds, so it is cheaper for businesses to hire them. Under the Conservatives, there will be thousands more jobs for young people. Will the Secretary of State get the Chancellor to use his Budget to do the same?

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Topical Questions

    The working-age welfare bill is set to reach £170 billion by the end of this Parliament, up £45 billion on the welfare party’s watch. All around the country, the residents of “Benefits Street” are doing better under Labour. The welfare Secretary is always across his brief, so can he tell me the benefits bill for his constituency?

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Topical Questions

    I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not know the answer, but I can help him. It is £400 million a year. That is why he is dragging his heels on welfare reform. The number of personal independence payment claimants in his constituency exceeds his majority, and the same can be said for 203 of his fellow Labour MPs. It is no wonder all his colleagues ask him who they can tax in order to spend more on benefits. Will this month’s Budget just be more of the same—hiking taxes on working families to pay for “Benefits Street”?

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentGregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{5C393467-CBED-4323-9D78-A27DAF95BEF2}">T1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{AFC25D38-ADED-444F-B76B-5FD32B8AF22E}">If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.</QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentGregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    This morning, <em>The Times</em> has reported that over two thirds of those on sickness benefits are awaiting their reassessment and remain unchecked, with average waits being over two years. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to meet its moral duty to help those who can work back into employment and its economic duty to save the taxpayer billions of pounds, with only those who genuinely need help receiving it?

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    International Update

    I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his commitment to being more straightforward with the House than perhaps has always been the case over the last couple of years. In the light of that, will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that he believes that the Brexit referendum was legitimate? Will he say so on the record?

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentEsther McVey

    International Update

    The Prime Minister opened today’s statement with the words that he “took a clear message to the United Nations: that…Britain is back and can be relied upon as a consistent and stable partner”. Is the same true of the Prime Minister? If so, can he tell me whether he plans to honour the Brexit referendum outcome, as he said in May when courting the Brexit voters of Makerfield, or is he planning to overturn it either partially or fully?

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentEdward Argar

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026

    I draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to paragraph 9.3 of the explanatory memorandum: “There will be one-off costs to businesses to familiarise themselves with the requirements, train staff and set up new systems. There will also be a one-off cost associated with the time taken to register for CBAM where required. In addition, there will be ongoing costs to businesses to collate and report to HMRC information about the CBAM goods they have imported”. What sort of quantum will those costs come out at? What assessment has the Financial Secretary made of what those costs will be for a business?

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    International Update

    The Falklands have to get explicit permission from this country to have new oil and gas licences, so will the Prime Minister consent to them? If the answer is yes, why is it okay to drill in the South Pacific but not in the North sea? If it is no, how does that figure with self-determination of the Falklands Islands?

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentDr Kieran Mullan

    International Update

    The Prime Minister likes to present himself as a straight-talking kind of guy, but again and again he has been asked a straight question and not given a straight answer. Can he rule out—yes or no—taking Britain back into freedom of movement while he is Prime Minister?

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentDr Caroline Johnson

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    First, I must declare an interest as a consultant NHS paediatrician and a member of the British Medical Association and of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and also that I have worked in neonatal intensive care in a number of different hospitals, including Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, where I worked as a junior doctor, briefly overlapping with the initial period of the Ockenden review.<span id="139" class="column-number" data-column-number="139"></span> I congratulate the hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for securing this important debate, and also charities such as Bliss, Tommy’s and Sands for their important work. As has been said, this has become somewhat of an annual debate, and it follows the same pattern. We hear many stories—we have heard many emotional stories this evening from very brave Members who have put forward their words or the words of their brave constituents. We reflect on the babies that have been lost—their first words, when they would have taken their first steps, who they would have grown up to become. We talk in sorrow and in memory. But there is also some frustration, because 13 babies every day will die shortly before, during or after their birth. So although it is important to reflect, I firmly believe that families would like us also to focus on prevention and service improvements. I shall therefore focus in the rest of my remarks on the question of whether the Government are doing all they can to tackle baby loss, and are doing so as quickly as possible. As a children’s doctor, I have been privileged to attend hundreds of births. Politics offers the opportunity to save more lives than doctors can across the whole country, because it has the power to make impactful change and save lives, and the Government must use it. Just over a decade ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, then the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, set a target to halve the rate of stillbirths and neonatal and maternal deaths by 2030. He did not succeed completely but made encouraging progress. Stillbirths fell by 20%, neonatal deaths fell by 20% and maternal deaths fell by a third. As my right hon. Friend himself said earlier, that means that 700 additional babies a year are waking up today and tomorrow, loving their parents and being loved by their parents, and bringing great joy. The new Health Secretary came into post last month and I welcome her to her place. She is right when said that “it is time to put maternity and neonatal care and safety at the top of the NHS agenda, where they belong.”<span id="vol790_col1616" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="1616" data-volume-number="790" data-external-id="FABD5124-E4F9-42FC-91DF-3D35CD3D7F6B">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 15 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1616.]</span> I know that this issue is important to her and we acknowledge that the Government have made progress in some areas. They have built on Conservative work by expanding baby loss certificates—we heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) just how important and vital those certificates can be—and they have implemented Martha’s rule, so that people can have a second opinion. I appreciate the Secretary of State is new in post, but her predecessors have acted too slowly. The Government came to power in July 2024 saying that they had a plan for the NHS, but it took them a year, until July 2025, to bring forward their 10-year plan. They said that they will bring forward a neonatal task force, but they took seven months to decide who was going to be on it. They said that a maternity and neonatal plan was going to be produced, and that a rapid review would produce a plan by December 2025, but it came in June 2026, almost two years after their election.<span id="140" class="column-number" data-column-number="140"></span> The national maternity investigation brought forward two key recommendations. The first recommendation is to appoint a maternity and neonatal commissioner, which the Government have promised to do. That promise was announced over three months ago, so will the Secretary of State tell us when that appointment will be made? Will it be delayed by putting it on a statutory footing or will she be able to make the appointment anyway? The second recommendation is to develop a modern service framework to establish minimum standards for maternity care. The Government announced that they were developing a national action plan on that, but it will not be ready until December 2026. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that it will be ready by December 2026, which is now very soon? In the meantime, the Government have promised £41 million for maternity and neonatal buildings. Will the Secretary of State tell us how and where this money will be spent, and which hospitals will benefit? My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) talked about people experiencing baby loss or who had babies on the neonatal unit being placed on a ward next to people who were celebrating the births of healthy children, who were beside them. Will the Secretary of State say how she is going to manage that so it does not happen any more? The Government have spoken about the black and Asian maternal mortality gap. In their manifesto, they committed to a target to close that gap. Will the Secretary of State tell us when that target will be published and how she will close that gap? The workforce is key to delivering these outcomes. The last Conservative Government created a long-term workforce plan for the NHS, but this Government decided that they wanted to create their own workforce plan, which is absolutely their right to do so. We were promised that plan by the end of 2025. We are now deep into autumn 2026, and we are being told they will provide an update on the workforce plan “in due course”. Having previously been told it was imminent, that is somewhat disappointing. The Government need to know and say how many midwives they are going to need, as well as how many obstetricians, gynaecologists and paediatricians. How will all those people be trained? How many more medical school places may be required? The Government promised time and again that they would double the number of medical school places, yet they have rowed back on that promise like it never existed. Will the Secretary of State tell us once and for all if the Government will be doubling the number of medical school places, or if that was just a 2024 general election promise? On what date will the workforce plan be ready and published? The manifesto also promised to train thousands of additional midwives. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many have been trained so far? My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) spoke about the importance of listening to women and not having an ideological fixation on a normal birth or particular type of delivery, but instead looking for a good outcome. On training, will the Secretary of State elaborate on how she intends to encourage midwives and obstetricians to see themselves as one team? I know in some places they do, but in other places, tragically they do not. Will she set out how <span id="141" class="column-number" data-column-number="141"></span>they can work together with the wider team of anaesthetists, paediatricians and other professionals to achieve the best outcomes for women, rather than a particular ideological outcome? Some have talked this evening about the complexity of pregnancies in modern times. Can the Secretary of State talk about whether she feels nursing skills are required in midwifery, and to what extent? How does she intend to ensure that they are delivered? I know that the Government have their three shifts, one of which is prevention. Will she talk about vaccination and chronic disease optimisation before pregnancy and how they could help to reduce the number of babies lost? On a wider level, the NHS is being reorganised. I appreciate that that was announced before the Secretary of State became the Secretary of State, but the abolition of NHS England and the shaking up of ICBs is causing disruption to health services. The abolition of Healthwatch, which she still has time to do something about, is removing the independent voice—the listening to women that we have heard about so much this evening. There are many, many fantastic NHS staff, and many women—most women, in fact—get great care, but some do not, and the findings of recent investigations and investigations over many years have been hugely disturbing. I know that the Secretary of State cares very deeply about this topic, so I would like her reassurance that these plans will be published, the staff will be trained and the taskforce and commissioner will be effective, and that she will deliver on the maternity safety that everybody right across the House wants to see.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentDavid Reed

    International Update

    For the avoidance of doubt, will the Prime Minister confirm which country was responsible for the Jaguar Land Rover hack and, more importantly, whether there have been any repercussions?

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentDame Karen Bradley

    National Security

    I cannot be alone in having had many colleagues over the years report to me instances where they have received threats and the police have simply not taken them seriously. It is only when those threats have escalated and further action has been taken that the police have finally intervened, and that is simply not good enough. We have also seen in this recent case that the police communications are not appropriate and that Mr Speaker and Mr Lord Speaker are unable to offer the necessary support to those Members who have been victims. What conversation is the Home Secretary having with the police about their attitude to threats to Members of Parliament? These threats need to be taken seriously. We do not want to see another plaque put up in this Chamber for another murdered colleague.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentDame Caroline Dinenage

    Milburn Report

    When it comes to youth unemployment, it sounds like the Secretary of State has his head very firmly in the sand. Did he not hear Member after Member from across this House stand up and quote how the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training has gone up under this Government? The Secretary of State quotes back to us the national figures for people in employment overall, but that is because the population <span id="13" class="column-number" data-column-number="13"></span>has gone up. What are the NEET figures? In Gosport, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has gone up by 23% under this Government. That is all because of the number of taxes that are being put on the businesses there to employ them, particularly the small businesses that provide the Saturday jobs and apprenticeships: hair and beauty, adult social care and care. What will Alan Milburn’s report say, and what is the Secretary of State actually going to do about it?

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentDame Caroline Dinenage

    International Update

    On illegal immigration, the Prime Minister will be aware that in the last month, three boats have left Normandy bound for the Solent and the south coast. The Government are giving France £662 million, yet the smugglers have simply moved down the coast. On 4 October, nearly 150 people landed in Gosport, against the will of local people and of the local council and against the safety advice of the police and crime commissioner. This sends a message to <span id="40" class="column-number" data-column-number="40"></span>these evil people-smuggling gangs that this is now a viable new route. Given that no one from the Home Office had the courtesy to contact me before, during or after those 150 people were landed on the shores of my constituency, could the Prime Minister let me know what conversations are happening with France to try to shut down these routes from Normandy?

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentChris Philp

    National Security

    I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The whole House supports the security services and the police for their work. I pay tribute to the brave men and women who serve our country in that way. On RAF Fairford, seven suspects were arrested, one a dual UK-Iranian national. These men were all released quickly on bail, about which senior US officials have expressed surprise. Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether she thinks it was reasonable to release those men so quickly, and whether she believes they pose any risk? Will she also tell the House whether the Government were aware in advance of any threat to RAF Fairford and, if so, what action they took? As the Prime Minister and, just now, the Home Secretary have said, it is highly likely that the Iranian state directed this. It is not acceptable for a state like Iran to organise hostile activity on our soil. After the Salisbury attacks by Russia, then Prime Minister Theresa May expelled 23 Russian diplomats. Will the Government now take similar action and expel Iranian diplomats, especially those thought to be involved in hostile activity or espionage? Does she agree that in these circumstances it was unwise of the Foreign Secretary to publicly shake hands with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 24 September, in contravention of long-standing Foreign Office policy? I note that on 4 October the US withdrew all its B-1 bombers from RAF Fairford, and both the President and vice-president of the US ascribed this to security concerns. Will the Home Secretary confirm that that is indeed why the B-1s left, and does she have any concerns about the safety of US military assets here in the UK? Shortly after the RAF incident, two Latvian men were arrested inside RAF Molesworth, which also hosts US forces? Can she comment on whether any foreign state may also have been involved in that incident? I thank the Home Secretary for her update on the police response to the terrible murder of Ann Widdecombe. The whole House mourns her, and those who knew Ann will miss her. This comes on the heels of the tragic murders of our dear colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess not that long ago. The threat against current and former Members of Parliament is clearly a very real one. Joshua Kerry, the man accused of murdering Ann, is said by prosecutors to have an “extreme left-wing mindset”, suggesting that this was a politically motivated murder. He is also accused of conducting online reconnaissance on over 100 public figures and trying to break into the home of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) last year. It has been reported that despite recovering substantial amounts of CCTV, that case was closed. It was then reopened—

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentChris Philp

    National Security

    I was quoting what the prosecutor said, Mr Speaker, but I will of course take your advice, as always. I was going to ask whether the Home Secretary shares my concern, which she alluded to in her statement, that the cancellation of the earlier investigation may have meant that opportunities to prevent the later tragedy were missed. I understand that a number of current and former MPs have very recently been contacted to be told that they appeared on a list made by Kerry. Kerry was arrested on 11 July, but it was not until last week—nearly three months later—that some on that list, including current and former MPs, were notified. Can the Home Secretary tell the House when she knew about that list? Does she agree that it would be wrong if those on it had had that information withheld from them for a period of time, potentially as long as three months? Threats to democratically elected representatives are threats to democracy itself, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement on protective security, including for those outside Parliament—recognising, of course, that it is Mr Speaker who plays the leading role in protecting Members of Parliament. I would also like to mark the anniversary of the terrible deaths of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby at Heaton Park synagogue in an antisemitic attack perpetrated by an Islamist extremist. In the year since, I have twice visited Golders Green in the aftermath of antisemitic attacks. As the Home Secretary said, in the last 10 days two Iranian small boat illegal immigrants have been charged with plotting a further antisemitic terror attack in Manchester. It is more important than ever that we redouble our efforts to fight antisemitism and Islamist extremism with all our might. On that topic, I wrote to the Home Secretary on 27 September asking her to deny an entry visa to Randa Abdel-Fattah, who praised the appalling terrorist massacre on 7 October as “exhilarating”. But the Home Secretary allowed her into our country anyway. Why did the Home Secretary do that, given the obvious risk that Abdel-Fattah might radicalise others with her antisemitic and pro-terror views? I really think that demands a specific answer. There are clearly a wide range of serious threats to the safety of our country, political leaders across the political spectrum and our Jewish community. I know that the whole House will be united in wanting to fight those threats. I thank again those serving in the security services and the police, who work tirelessly to keep us safe. The whole House supports them in their vital work.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

  38. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

  39. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Point of Order

    I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know—as, indeed, will the whole House—how important it is for Ministers to provide timely responses to correspondence from Members. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns, and I note that it is the Leader of the House who is listening to this. He takes these matters very seriously, and will, I am sure, report to the relevant Health Minister to ensure that the hon. Member’s concerns are addressed.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Written Parliamentary Questions

    We now come to the first Select Committee statement. The Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, Members may ask questions on the subject of the statement. They must be brief questions, not full speeches.

    Hansard source