Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I doubt if the Leader of the House has ever given a more popular statement to the House of Commons. More seriously, this is a welcome development as it will give guidance to colleagues and their families, and I am sure it will be widely welcomed across the House, so I thank her for that. I understand that Robert Gibbs, the acting director of catering services, will be leaving on Friday, after 25 years in this House. One shudders to think of the thousands of Members of the House of Commons and their staff whose lives will have been enriched by the joy of eating the food of the catering services under his command, and we thank him very much for his service. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking him for his work. We are getting close to the end of term and I want to thank all the staff for their service, and, of course, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, and the Clerks for the resilience, courage, determination and poker faces that they have kept through all the business questions that we have had since the beginning of the year. It may come as slightly more of a surprise to the House that I also want to thank the Leader of the House. No one who has not held that position understands the amount of work that is involved in scheduling and managing the business of this House, let alone the amount of work involved in scheduling and managing the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues. The Leader of the House distinguished herself with her very graceful response to my remarks about my father some months ago, and I thank her again for that. I also thank her for her engagement and humour and, I must say, more than a few groan-inducing puns, of which we will undoubtedly see considerably more this morning and with which she has dealt with questions from colleagues across all parts of this House. I hope I may register that it is a slight sadness to me that the Leader of the House has not been willing to answer my own questions in the same spirit. I ask these questions not in a personal capacity, but as the spokesman for His Majesty’s official Opposition, whose function is, after all, to hold the Government to account. The refusal to answer genuine, sensible questions is actually a discourtesy not just to the House, but to our wider constitutional framework and ultimately the supreme source of sovereign authority in this country: the King in Parliament. I think any fair-minded person reviewing our exchanges would conclude that my questions are almost always directed at some public purpose, and it would undoubtedly improve business questions and the accountability and authority of the Leader of the House if she were able to engage with them. In the same spirit, I will raise some serious questions about what the Government’s position is with regard to Northern Ireland veterans. As the Leader of the House will know, hundreds and thousands of men and women went to Northern Ireland not of their own accord, but under orders and in a chain of command on the Queen’s business, to combat the most serious terrorist organisation in the world at the time and to protect human lives and human society. Many of those veterans, including many members of the special forces, cannot respond to the terrible injustice being done to them. Almost exactly a year ago, barely three weeks after the election, the Government decided to abandon the appeals to the Supreme Court to uphold the key sections of the legacy Act against a High Court judgment in Northern Ireland. In the veterans debate on Monday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that those sections were “unlawful” as a result of the judgment. Yesterday, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister himself said twice that the legacy Act had been “struck down”. Unfortunately, those statements are both untrue and misleading. There can be no doubt what the law is on this topic. A succession of the most senior judges in recent British history—Judges Steyn, Hope, Bingham, Hale and Reed among them—have made it absolutely clear that a declaration of incompatibility does not mean that the law is unlawful or has been struck down. As the then Senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, said in 2004, in such cases the validity of the law “remains unaffected”. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is no lawyer, but he should understand that basic point, given his job. The Prime Minister, however, has been a barrister for 38 years, and a human rights lawyer for most of that time. It is inconceivable that he did not understand the distinction. To that extent, he was, whether deliberately or inadvertently, misleading the House. The Secretary of State appeared to say that he had abandoned these appeals on political grounds. It is plain that the Government are split and have been unable to develop a satisfactory legal remedy in the 12 months since they abandoned the appeals, leaving thousands of veterans, many in their 70s and older, exposed to legal harassment, anxiety and trauma. I put two serious and substantive questions to the Leader of the House. As the Leader of the House, in upholding the practices, tradition and honour of this House, will she ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister to correct those false and misleading statements to the House? When will we see legislation to address the legal gap that the Government’s decision to abandon these legacy Act appeals has created?
- Hansard source
NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care
With the British Medical Association set to strike, and with the Health Secretary reduced to pleading with it not to, thousands of patients are set to have their appointments cancelled. Can the Minister assure the House that she will grip this issue so that senior doctors do not also reduce their hours? And will she rule out bonuses for NHS Business Services Authority executives?
- Hansard source
Ukraine
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It was less than a month ago that the United States undertook a bombing raid on Iranian nuclear facilities—one of the most significant military actions undertaken anywhere in the world for years. With such developments understandably dominating the headlines, and almost three and a half years having elapsed since Russia first launched its unprovoked and illegal all-out invasion, it is right that the Government regularly update the House—as we did—on developments in Ukraine. The reality is that there has been no let-up in Russian aggression. As the Secretary of State confirmed, 9 July saw the largest drone attack of the war by Russia, and there were reports yesterday of Russia using 400 drones to target energy infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. That indiscriminate barbarism has inevitably led to further civilian casualties, but on the military side, can the Secretary of State confirm that Russia has suffered by far the greatest losses? He confirmed that last month, Russian battlefield casualties surpassed 1 million. Does that not show the extent to which Putin has nothing but callous disregard for the human impact of his actions on either side? I am proud of the decisive assistance that we provided to Ukraine when we were in office. We continue to stand with the Government in seeking to provide all possible support, but it is vital that all our allies play their part. On France, and what was previously called the coalition of the willing, I agree that we need to be ready for when that peace comes, so can the Secretary of State confirm how many other nations will provide fighter jets to the Multinational Force Ukraine? Can he confirm that there is no longer any planning for a land combat element to the MNFU? We welcome the additional provision of military hardware by the US, but the Secretary of State said that “we plan to play our full part.” Will the UK therefore be purchasing military equipment from the United States to pass on to Ukraine? The Secretary of State did not mention potential sanctions or tariffs. It has been widely reported that President Trump is considering tariffs of 100% on goods entering the US from any country that imports any product from Russia. Have the Government discussed this plan with the US, and will the UK follow suit? The Times reports today that Andriy Yermak, senior adviser to President Zelensky, has stated that the imposition of secondary sanctions on nations buying oil and gas from Russia could end the war “before the end of this year.” Does the Secretary of State agree with that analysis, and again, would the UK join in any secondary sanctions policy directed against countries importing Russian oil and gas? On Germany, we understand that the Prime Minister is meeting Chancellor Merz today. May I urge the Government to push their German counterparts on provision of Taurus missiles to Ukraine? Alternatively, given that the missiles are, we understand, compatible with Typhoon, will the Government backfill UK stocks to enable the provision of more Storm Shadow missiles? Turning to the impact of all this on the UK, we understand that Germany will today sign an agreement with the Prime Minister to come to each other’s aid in the event of an attack on the other. Will the Secretary of State outline how that is different from NATO article 5? I have had recent discussions with senior German parliamentarians on the impact on our nations of supporting Ukraine, and the Germans believe, as has been widely reported, that drone overflights of their military bases were linked to nefarious Russian activity. In the context of recent threats to RAF bases, and drone overflights at Suffolk RAF bases and elsewhere last November, can he update us at all—I appreciate the sensitivity of this—on whether there is yet any indication of Russian involvement? In particular, will he update us on progress on the review of security at UK bases, which he launched last month? When I was Minister for Defence Procurement, I stripped out a whole load of processes and red tape to bring forward the in-service date of our groundbreaking DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to 2027. Given the extraordinary potential for directed energy weapons, will the Secretary of State accelerate adoption even further, and ensure rapid testing of anti-drone defences for our military bases? On drones more broadly, in a written answer in March, Ministers confirmed that they had ordered just three military drones for our armed forces since the election. I have tabled subsequent written questions on progress, and Ministers are now saying that they cannot answer the question. What is the latest figure? UK small and medium-sized enterprises have provided some of the best drones and counter-drone measures used on the live battlefield in Ukraine, so why are we not ordering the same kit in parallel for our own Army, at scale and at pace, so that it can train today—not years in the future—in how war is fought right now in Ukraine? After three and half years of war, we must keep reminding the British public of the most important point for our national interest—namely, that the best way to defend our homeland right now is to give all possible support to Ukraine, so that the democracy triumphs over the dictatorship, and to prevent Putin’s aggression from spreading westwards.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert— “(4A) The terms under subsection (1)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. As I have throughout the passage of the Bill, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am taking a safety-first approach here—and the donation from Nemesis of synthetic road fuel for a constituency surgery tour last year. That is not relevant to sustainable aviation fuel, but I want to be entirely transparent about it, as I have been throughout the passage of the Bill. Before I speak to amendment 3, a broad comment about all the amendments I will speak to today is that, fundamentally the Opposition are not a million miles from the Government on the Bill. However, as I am sure you expect us to do, Mr Western, it is our job as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to kick the tyres and ensure that the Bill is as strong and workable as it can be. We share the ambition to decarbonise aviation and ensure that everybody still can fly for pleasure or business, and that businesses can move goods around the world using air freight. It is in that spirit that I tabled amendment 3, which aims to ensure that the producers that come forward for the various contracts consider the full breadth of the sustainable aviation fuel technologies available. On Tuesday, we heard oral evidence from manufacturers of wholly synthetic, waste-derived and feedstock-derived sustainable aviation fuels. It is important to look at the panoply of fuels in relation to the long-term environmental impact and the practicalities of producing them today. As I said on Second Reading, my big fear, which led to my tabling the amendment, is that industries might be stood up only to be turned off again in 10 or 20 years, as the technology becomes redundant. For example, in the oral evidence session on Tuesday we almost had a debate about the possible pitfall of there not being a waste supply to create waste-derived sustainable aviation fuel. Many local authorities up and down the land, my own in Buckinghamshire included, are tied up in 10, 20 or even 30-year financial obligations to, for example, the financing of energy for waste incinerators, which in some parts of the country are connected to heat networks. It may therefore not be possible for councils to say simply, “No, we want to move our waste to a equally productive but different form.” Those contracts exist. The point of the amendment is to ensure that we look through that very clear lens to see which of the technologies available for producing sustainable aviation fuel will have the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact in the long term. From the evidence we heard the other day, it is clear that some technologies are at a different point of development from others, but none is actually that far away. For example, the evidence we heard from Zero Petroleum was that it is ready to scale a wholly synthetic production facility right now. Of course, that does not happen overnight—it takes some considerable time to build any facility—but the scalability is able to happen right now. The Government should reflect on that point and should not look just at the technologies that are available right here, right now. I would argue that, too often in this country, we look for alignment with the technology that is available today, when that which is only hours, days, weeks or months away may well be better and worth waiting for. That is the point of the amendment: ensuring that we get this right for the long term, so that we have a supply of sustainable and, I hope, synthetic—entirely man-made from air and water—fuels available for this country, so that we have the liquid hydrocarbons there, available for purchase, using the price mechanism which sits at the heart of the Bill to get production going, so that our aviation sector can continue to flourish and be available for all that wish to use it.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I accept many of the arguments that the Minister has put forward. I note he acknowledged that, off the back of the evidence sessions on Tuesday, all the current technologies are ready. That is a really important point for the Committee and the whole House to reflect upon as the Bill progresses. There has been something of a narrative from the usual vested interests in the country suggesting that one technology or another is not in the right state to be able to move forward, or to produce sustainable aviation fuel at the scale we need as a country. It is very welcome that the Minister acknowledged in his remarks that the technologies are already to scale, whether the fuel is HEFA-derived, waste-derived or entirely synthetic following the Fischer-Tropsch process at large.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I will make one or two brief comments on the new clauses that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. The official Opposition have some sympathy with new clause 2. It is always sensible with any new legislation to ensure, within a reasonable timeframe, that it is doing what it was meant to do. We can all debate things when they are a new idea in Committee and in the House, and on paper they might seem as though they are going to be all fine and rosy, but of course we can never predict that with 100% certainty. The review that new clause 2 would bake into the Bill—we can all do the parliamentary arithmetic; it will become an Act at some point in the near future—seems fundamentally sensible. I understand where the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, is coming from with new clause 6, because of course by definition aviation is a global industry. By practicality, the vast majority of flights leaving these shores are going to other countries. I therefore understand why the hon. Gentleman would seek a degree of co-operation on the fuel that airlines leaving UK airports and landing in other countries will have to refuel with. Those airlines will have to use the fuel that is available in France, the United States of America, Australia, India or anywhere else. That level of co-operation is important. I would merely push back a little in arguing that we need to keep a careful eye on not just the European area; it needs to go much further than that. An enormous number of UK aircraft will be refuelling in countries all over the world. It is about trying to get that certainty of supply of a level of fuel that aligns with what we are setting down as our values—the blends that we, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have baked into the SAF mandate. The other side of the coin to the Bill is that we should seek to use our influence abroad to achieve things in other countries. We will probably be unable to do so in many of them, but it does not hurt to have that overview and ambition to be the world leaders on sustainable aviation fuel, and to see whether we can encourage others to follow our lead.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I do not have a great deal to say on the provisions, other than that it is always regrettable when Northern Ireland is forgotten and has to be inserted via an amendment. On the clause, I have no problem with financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, so I am not attacking the clause per se, but what will the appeal mechanism be? When it comes to law that involves financial penalties, a company will often have a legitimate case—force majeure, or whatever it might be—as to why it has been unable to comply with the letter of the law, and it is always important, as a matter of natural justice, for an appeal mechanism to be in place. Does the Minister intend to enable appeals where such financial penalties are given?
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 12, page 7, line 12, at end insert— “(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on— (a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period; (b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period. (4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter. (5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph (a) before Parliament.” Amendment 4 focuses on UK IP, which I alluded to earlier. Given that we have been told throughout the passage of the Bill, and the Opposition agree, that we need to underpin domestic sovereign fuel security, there should be a provision in the Bill that gives preference to UK IP and UK producers—not just those that might happen to make the fuel here, but those that are using UK-derived innovation and technology to do so. Of course, we exist in a global marketplace and are often reliant on imports, but it would be regrettable if the Bill enabled the standing-up of industries that are based entirely on foreign-owned technology. That is what the amendment seeks to correct.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I spoke to amendment 5—I apologise.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I apologise, Mr Western, for getting ahead of myself. I went slightly cross-eyed as I looked down at my notes, and have two amendments back to back. I stand by what I said, and maybe we can save some time later as I have already made my comments on amendment 5. We all make mistakes; we are all human. Turning to amendment 4, then, much has been made of the cost to the end user. We had a good debate on Second Reading in which all agreed, across the House and all political parties, that the challenge, as we decarbonise and move to net zero, is that everyone must still be able to do the things that they want to do—to fly and move goods around—but in a cleaner, decarbonised, and net zero way. We have been the first in the western world to legislate for that by 2050. When I heard the Minister say—in both the private briefings that he gave before the Bill was introduced to the House, for which I am grateful, and then on the Floor of the House on Second Reading—that the net impact would be only plus or minus £1.50 on an ultimate airfare, I was delighted. I took him at his word. I thought, “Fantastic. That is something that consumers will surely be happy with”—particularly if it is on the minus £1.50 side of the equation. Yet, in the evidence sessions on Tuesday, I am not sure that a single witness was willing to put their own name to that plus or minus £1.50 fluctuation. Some witnesses went even further by saying they thought that was—I hesitate to use this word—a conservative estimate. The point of amendment 4 is to try to ensure that we get something baked into the Bill that acknowledges the ultimate potential cost to the end user: the consumer, the person, any of our constituents who wish to book a flight to go on holiday or on a business trip.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point; I do not think that we are misaligned on that argument. Yes, we need to move to sustainable aviation fuel, preferably at the better end of that technology. It is this very Bill that will ensure that we can, as a country, move faster towards that aim with—I have used the phrase before—the other side of the coin of the Bill, which is the SAF mandate. When the Conservatives were in government, we were heading towards that, but I fully acknowledge that it is the new Government who have introduced it to the House. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a cost to doing nothing, but it is incumbent on all of us on behalf of our constituents, and the businesses that operate within our constituencies and require the use of air freight, to ensure that we are not legislating for something that will put an undue additional financial burden on them. The point of the amendment is to embrace the Minister’s commitments at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, and in the briefings beforehand—which, I repeat, I was grateful to him for putting on—and to ensure that as the Committee potentially allows the Bill to go on to Report, and further through the parliamentary process, we are confident in those numbers, and about the impact that we, collectively, as a Committee and ultimately as Members of Parliament, are putting on the statute book. It is in that spirit that the amendment has been put forward. I ask the Minister to ensure that the projections he has reported from the Dispatch Box come to fruition, so we do not end up looking back in probably a few years’ time, as opposed to a few months’ time, and discovering that the plus or minus £1.50 was much worse than that, as some of the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday suggested.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I am grateful to you for rescuing me, Mr Western, by grouping both amendments in the same debate. I made a mistake, so I put my hands up to that. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I will not press the matter to a vote but, as with the earlier amendment, when projections are made I think it is incumbent on the Government to find a way of giving comfort to all the travelling public and all those businesses that use air freight that the provisions of the Bill—I fully accept the comments of the hon. Member for Wimbledon on the wider effects of the mandate—will not produce a much higher cost to them when they go on their holidays or business trips or move goods around the world. Ahead of Report, will the Minister and his team in the Department look at ways to kick the tyres on those presumptions—in particular given the evidence we heard on Tuesday—and check that they are robust as possible and have the confidence of industry? I would be grateful for that, and we may well return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I absolutely understand and appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from with this new clause. This topic came up in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading. It is of great concern that the slightly lower tariffs deal done with the United States of America has clearly and materially threatened UK production of bioethanol, which of course has many uses. Many of us on the petrol station forecourt will have seen the curious E5 and E10 labels on the petrol pumps, which is about the ethanol blended with the regular fossil fuel. Our consumption of it as a country is particularly high. As we are debating the potential future of bioethanol in sustainable aviation fuel production, it is incumbent upon the Government to reflect, within the scope of the Bill, on how much domestic supply there can be. So much of the Bill is underpinned by sovereign capability and fuel security—a point on which the Opposition and I think the Liberal Democrats are equally aligned on; it is so important—and so surely this new clause must also be important to the Government. I ask the Minister to reflect on that when he responds.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making with new clause 4, but I would argue that it is unnecessary; the whole point of the Bill is to decarbonise aviation. As the Minister said himself, and as I hope the Committee will accept, the Bill was conceived and finds its origins under the last Government, and it was then carried through by this Government, so it is something that we can rightly be proud of on both sides of the House. As we are leading the world on this issue, I am not sure that new clause 4 is necessary. However, new clause 5 is more interesting, because it goes to the very crux of the debate we had earlier on the various technologies that can produce sustainable aviation fuel in the United Kingdom. It goes without saying that, while all forms of sustainable aviation fuel—as we know it at the moment—are greener than their fossil fuel equivalent, there is significant variation in the greenhouse gas and carbon emissions between using blends or 100% sustainable aviation fuel in an aircraft. The merits of new clause 5 go to the absolute centre of the debate on which of those technologies, or which of those great innovations, can deliver the closest to net zero over the coming years and decades, if not net zero itself. If new clause 5 were baked into the Bill, and ultimately the Act, it would be interesting to see how it would enable us judge among those different technologies. I have talked in the House many times about the importance of whole-system analysis, which is an analysis not just of the effect while the jet engines are turning and the planes are in the sky, but of the whole impact on greenhouse gas and carbon emissions of manufacturing the fuel and what is done with the waste product afterwards, particularly carbon. New clause 5 would go to the heart of discovering that. One of the things that we have seen in evidence, and that we have talked before about in the Chamber, is the effect when certain fuels are derived, in part, from atmospheric carbon capture—the carbon emitted post combustion, which comes out of the tailpipe of the aircraft, is the same amount of carbon that is recaptured from the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. New clause 5 has the merit of enabling us to command the Government to review that, which is why His Majesty’s Official Opposition have sympathy with it.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
Rasping?
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
The central question is whether that review, when it comes, looks at the greenhouse gas savings while the aircraft is in use, or gives a whole-system analysis, from the production and use of the fuel to the benefits of using the by-products, post combustion, to make more fuel. That is an important clarification that we need.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Fourth sitting)
New clause 8 has considerable merit. It is always preferable where new industrial facilities are to be built—in this case for the production of sustainable aviation fuel—for those identified sites to have had former brownfield status and former industrial use. I have no argument with that element of the new clause. The one note of caution I have on the new clause is that many of the existing sites—certainly oil refinery sites—are not necessarily located in the right places currently for certain SAF technologies. That includes the e-fuels and power-to-liquid solutions, which require, as part of the process, electrolysis and the creation of green hydrogen. Of course, if the hydrogen element that goes into making the SAF is not green hydrogen, the whole problem becomes rather academic—we could still make the fuel, but the reality is that it would not be as green as we want it to be. Those SAF production facilities, by definition, would need to be located in places with potential large-scale offshore wind, electricity production or, possibly, nuclear generation. If we look across the world at such fuel plants that have been created, Porsche, for example, chose the hills of Chile to produce its particular fuel, because it can leverage off the wind power that it can get up there. In our country, Orkney seems to have been a popular site for harnessing the offshore wind technology available up there. While I fully support the principle that underpins the new clause—for many SAF production sites to be on former industrial or oil refinery sites—I simply wish to add the note of caution that they might not be suitable for every application and technology out there.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Fourth sitting)
I associate myself with the Minister’s thanks to everyone who has worked so hard on the Bill, particularly the civil servants; I welcomed the ability to discuss the Bill with them in a private briefing before Second Reading. I also thank the Doorkeepers, Hansard and the Clerks for ensuring that the Committee has run smoothly. It is quite a pleasant experience to engage with a Bill in opposition when there is fundamental agreement on the direction of travel. The other Bill Committee of this Parliament on which I was shadow Minister was for the Employment Rights Bill, where we did not enjoy quite the same level of consensus, but to meet the challenges of decarbonising our aviation industry it is important that this Bill progresses rapidly. However, I urge the Minister, who has been kind and engaged throughout the process, to continue to reflect on the points that I have raised in Committee and that the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), raised on Second Reading, as well as the many worthy points that the Liberal Democrats have raised. If we can keep going in the spirit of cross-party working and reflect on some of the points about UK intellectual property—making this a UK success story, making the UK a world leader and ensuring that the technologies that emerge genuinely do what they say they will—then I think all of Parliament, not just the Government, can be proud to push the Bill through. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
- Hansard source
High Street Businesses
At the heart of every high street are wonderful hospitality SMEs—pubs, cafés, restaurants, bars and coffee shops—yet the 2024 Budget was a hammer blow to them. With £3.4 billion of extra costs, one in 10 restaurants faces closure this year. Indeed, Labour’s Budget has already cost hospitality 69,000 jobs. For context, in the same period the previous year, hospitality created 18,000 new jobs. Can the Minister assure the House that businesses that are hanging on by a thread will not face a hard landing this winter?
- Hansard source
High Street Businesses
That answer is simply not good enough for the 63% of employees in the hospitality sector whose jobs are on the line. Yet we now read in the press that the Government appear set on forcing restaurateurs to monitor customers’ calorie consumption—another crippling blow of red tape on top of national insurance hikes, minimum wage hikes and the regulatory firestorm of the Employment Rights Bill. Jeremy Clarkson is not wrong when he says that the Chancellor is “using a machine gun on publicans.” Can the Minister really look hospitality SMEs on our high streets and beyond in the eye and say that this is somehow good for business?
- Hansard source
RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on securing this debate and on the way she recounted such moving and powerful stories. Each story is unique, but they are all united by themes of selflessness, quiet heroism and unwavering commitment to our country. I will pay particular attention to Tatton’s own local photographic reconnaissance unit hero, Flight Sergeant William Douglas Stepford. William was born in Handforth, married his sweetheart Bessie, and joined the RAF Volunteer Reserve. He trained as a navigator and was posted to 540 Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron. Sadly, in August 1944, while flying a reconnaissance mission over Munich, William’s aircraft was shot down over Hallstatt. He was just 24 years old. That was alongside his pilot, Flight Lieutenant Desmond Laurence Matthewman, DFC. For so many reconnaissance flights, the missions were carried out in exceptionally difficult circumstances—clandestine, unarmed and often solo flights over enemy territory, which put the individuals in unique danger. The death rate was nearly 50%, with one of the lowest survival rates in the war, but the unit captured 26 million photographs over the course of the war, taken by 1,746 reconnaissance pilots and navigators. The efforts of the unit were essential, and nowhere more so than in the planning of D-day, also known as Operation Overlord, the most significant victory of the allies. That was the most comprehensive reconnaissance operation of the war. In the months before the invasion, low-level reconnaissance flights over Normandy provided critical intelligence about German beach defences and key infrastructure. Without that information, the comprehensive plans for Operation Overlord, and its ultimate success, would not have been possible. Tatton played a unique role in the preparations. The quiet village of Lower Peover played host to many of the great Americans of history, from General George Patton to General Eisenhower—later President Eisenhower, of course. Peover Hall became the headquarters of the vast US third army. In the local pub, the Bells of Peover, Patton and Eisenhower met to discuss plans for the invasion. Today, still, in that pub, in the upstairs dining room—now, aptly, named The Patton—can be found a small pocket diary on display. Spread across the pages for 5 and 6 June 1944, an unknown serviceman wrote in block capitals: “D-day tomorrow. Everybody quite excited. We land at Arromanches, clear three villages of Bayeux.” Last year, on the 80th anniversary of D-day, I was pleased to unveil a blue plaque to mark the pub’s place in history alongside the lord lieutenant of the county of Cheshire, Councillor Anthony Harrison, and the landlord of the pub, Phil Smith, and surrounded by the local community. The plaque serves as a reminder of the unique history of this beautiful village in Cheshire. Surrounding villages also played their part. From the secret aviation fuel plant in Plumley to the home guard at Shakerley Wood and the parachute training school at Tatton Park, each village, each unit and every individual had a role. Without those such as William Stepford putting themselves in the line of danger, the admiralty would not have had the intelligence it needed for operations like D-day. Without them, history would have taken a different course. Alongside Members here today from across the House, I welcome plans for this memorial. I am delighted that planning has already begun, but on this occasion, can I just ask the Minister to give us the full timeframe and completion date for this memorial? It is high time that their legacy is honoured by all of us and the entire country.
- Hansard source
NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on NHS pensions and the impact of administrative delays on frontline patient care.
- Hansard source
NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care
I declare an interest, for myself and on behalf of the shadow Front-Bench team, as we all have NHS pensions. In April, Mr Speaker granted us an urgent question because the Government have no real plan for NHS pension statements. Today we return because the Government have now admitted in writing that a new plan is failing— deadlines were missed, then pushed back, and now we have no idea what they are. Just 1,359 statements have been issued out of a required total of 381,920—just 0.35%. Further still, there is no comment on the remediable pension savings statements. Has the Government’s own delayed deadline of July been met or discussed? This matters. Hundreds of thousands of frontline doctors are not getting their pension statements. The British Medical Association is clear that senior doctors are stepping back from extra work for fear of unexpected tax liabilities. In short, taking on extra work risks an extra tax bill of thousands of pounds. When I raised this in April, the Minister retorted that I could have asked about the impact on services of cancelling the strikes. Well, I will do so now, as the strikes are back on. It will be the senior doctors who have to pick up the slack—the very doctors who are avoiding extra shifts for fear of the tax. If they will not take on the extra work for fear of the heavy tax burden, we have a huge problem. This should be a priority for the Government, especially as we plan for winter pressures. What will the Minister do to remedy the situation with RSS? What will she do regarding RPSS? Ministers cannot just announce new deadlines and then miss them, so would she be kind enough to publish a delivery plan? Finally, she said that the Government have faith in the NHS Business Services Authority. Is that still the case? Will she demand that the Pensions Regulator steps up and expedites its investigation, given that the referral was made in December 2024? In the end, doctors are counting on her, and so are their patients.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
On Tuesday, the second phase of health investment happened at the planning meeting in Hinckley. The planning for the £10 million day case unit was approved, but with a condition after a third party put in an appeal about a listing that had been declined twice before. Often when we come to this Chamber, it is to raise a complaint, but I would like to offer some congratulations. I have contacted the planning department and the NHS, and spoken to the CEO of the council, but I see that the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) is in his place, and his Department deserves recognition, because I have heard today that the designation review team have already looked at the application and said that the old one stands. That means that we now have a green light. Will the Leader of the House thank all those involved, from the NHS to the Department itself, the planning department and all the people who have got behind this effort—1,600 people in two weeks signed my petition—to get this over the line? It has now got the green light, so will she congratulate them and urge them forward, because if we do not get on with it, we lose the funding by 2026?
- Hansard source
Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms
I thank the hon. Lady and the Select Committee that she chairs for delivering this important review. I also thank her for her statement to the House, which has highlighted the scale of the challenge we face in relation to the proliferation of misleading and harmful content online. I join her in putting out my prayers and sympathies to all those affected by the horrors in Southport last year. Given the report’s findings that young people are particularly susceptible to misleading and harmful content and online radicalisation, due to the stage of their cognitive development, does the hon. Lady consider that the Government should commit to conducting a review of the evidential case for raising the digital age of consent for social media platforms from 13 to 16?
- Hansard source
RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz, and to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on the important subject of the contribution of the Royal Air Force Photographic Reconnaissance Unit during the second world war. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing today’s debate. This is a timely and fitting discussion as we mark 80 years since VE Day and VJ Day, and an opportunity to reflect on the immense contribution of a group whose role has not had the recognition it rightfully deserves, but was absolutely vital to the allied war effort. The missions flown by the PRU were among the most dangerous of the war. What lingers most in my mind is the nature of that risk and the quiet, unseen, uncelebrated courage it demanded. These young pilots flew solo into enemy airspace, unarmed and in unmarked aircraft, without recognition or fanfare. Their missions were secret, and many did not return. We rightly honour those who fought on the frontline, those whose bravery was visible, shared and publicly recognised. As a former Royal Marine who served in conflict zones, I know at first hand the reassurance that comes from seeing the whites of a colleague’s eyes in the thick of danger—the unspoken bond that comes from facing fear side by side. But the pilots of the PRU did not have that comfort. Their missions were long, silent and solitary. They flew alone, deep into enemy territory, without escort, unarmed and exposed. I cannot begin to imagine the isolation they must have felt, or the courage it took to take off knowing that the odds were often against them coming home. It is through speaking about that kind of service, and attempting to put ourselves in their place, that we begin to appreciate the full scale of their sacrifice. Members across this House have done a sterling job in raising constituents’ names and experiences, and in keeping their memory alive. The hon. Member for Carlisle—the daughter of a world war two veteran and someone who was close to the experiences of her parents—did a fantastic job of outlining some of the big things that the PRU did. Twenty-six million photographs is a staggering amount; 80% of the intelligence helping out the war effort came from the PRU. They saved hundreds of thousands of lives. It is truly impressive—but it came at a significant cost to their own lives, and they were willing to go out and take that risk and make that sacrifice for the wider mission. I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle for giving us an update on the memorial. I am happy to hear that it will be just a stone’s throw away from this place, outside the war rooms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mentioned the important figure that the death rate in the PRU was 50%. As a former solider, going into a unit and knowing that your chances of coming home were one in two would have been absolutely fear inducing. The hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) noted that someone actually committed suicide on base because of that fear. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) made the point that members of the PRU had a life expectancy of two years. Understanding that when they joined the unit must have been harrowing. She raised an important point about the international effort behind this unit, with 22 nations involved, and told the powerful story of John Boys-Stones, who died at the age of 22. This is the first time that some of their names have been spoken publicly; it is important to do it today, and I am glad to be involved in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) raised the wider point that, with some of the RAF missions that we have all heard about—the dam busters, the hunt for the Bismarck, D-day—the PRU played an important role in ensuring those famous missions were able to go ahead successfully. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) also made the point that it was not just about pilots; the death toll affected ranks from sergeant up to wing commander, on the ground prepping aircraft, and while they were coming back. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a strong and powerful voice for defence in this House, and a powerful advocate for Northern Ireland’s history. I always enjoy listening to him to hear the different sides of the story from all corners of our United Kingdom. He said a line that will stick with me: we are the keepers and guardians of the PRU’s history, and we must honour that and carry it forward. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about her constituent James, who died in an unrelated accident—a heart attack on the way back—but played a vital part in the PRU’s mission. His name should be included. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) spoke about the need for altitude, speed and luck in those missions. The PRU pilots were going out unarmed and unescorted, unlike many other pilots who flew during world war two. She talked about the family service—two brothers who served together in the RAF. From a parent’s perspective, it must have been horrifying to have two children go off on secret missions and not be able to talk about their service—not to know what they were doing, but to know that they were part of a very dangerous unit. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about the sheer number in unknown graves. It is not good enough. By bringing this subject to the House, we will start the process of remembering them in the proper and fitting way. I found myself in the shoes of the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) this time last year. Although I knew that this type of operation went ahead and that this type of intelligence was produced, I did not know much about the PRU. Over the past year, I have really enjoyed getting to understand the unit’s efforts and hearing about the personal stories and sacrifice of those involved. Like others, I want to take a moment to honour those who served in the PRU and had ties to my home, East Devon, to ensure that their stories are told and their names remembered. One of the most remarkable stories is that of Flight Lieutenant Peter Dakeyne, who was born in Kuala Lumpur in 1917 and later settled in Budleigh Salterton, near where I live now. He was fortunate and survived the war, but he did very daring things over France and in Belgium. The stories of others ended far too soon. I want to raise the names of Flight Lieutenant Robert Donaldson, Lyndon Gordon-White, Pilot Officer Charles Ousley and Flight Lieutenant William Scafe, who did not return home. To each of them, and to the families they left behind, I offer my sincere and enduring gratitude. Eighty years on from the end of the war, we find ourselves asking, “How do we keep these stories alive?” That was a theme that came out in almost every speech today. Fewer and fewer people hold living memory of the second world war. This may be one of the final times that veterans can come together in person and tell the stories of their experiences in world war two to the younger generations. That makes our responsibility all the greater to not just commemorate but teach, and pass on the history and, vitally, the meaning behind it. The stories we have heard today are extraordinary. They are the kinds of stories that we should be telling our children. They leave young people with a sense of pride in our country and those who protect it. We all know that the world is not becoming a safer place. We face new and growing threats. That raises the question of how we inspire the next generation to step up and serve. We cannot simply talk about the need for recruitment; we must foster a culture that respects and values service and speaks to young people today. Yet what do we see? The RAF banned from careers fairs at university, defence firms prevented from promoting legitimate roles to students and a college at Cambridge, one of our most prestigious universities, voting to sever financial ties with the defence industry altogether. Just imagine telling the young men and women who flew and worked for the PRU— who risked everything for our freedom—that, 80 years later, the very institutions they fought to protect would in turn be hostile to them. That is why we must keep telling these stories. We must ensure that their legacy is preserved, not distorted, and passed on honestly and with the respect it deserves. While we honour those who served in generations past, we must also stand up for those who have served more recently. Just days ago, 30 veterans who served in Northern Ireland sat in the Public Gallery during a Westminster Hall debate about the Government’s proposal to use a remedial order to reverse parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That change could see veterans prosecuted for actions taken during Operation Banner, often in extreme circumstances and decades ago. The cross-party support expressed in today’s debate is encouraging and speaks to the strength of feeling across the House about commemorating those who serve. But tribute alone is not enough. It is not acceptable to stand in this Chamber and honour veterans one day, only to abandon them the next. If we are serious about valuing service, we must honour all of it and all those who gave it to us. I urge the Government to change course on that issue. I understand that more than 200 Members from eight parties have now lent their support to a formal memorial recognising those who served in the PRU. I place on record my full backing for that proposal. It is overdue. I look forward to visiting the memorial once it is formally unveiled. I also join the hon. Member for Carlisle in calling for the Ministry of Defence to offer departmental assistance to those working to finalise the list of names. I understand that all publicly available sources have been exhausted, and it would be a real disservice if any names were missed. We must ensure that the memorial is complete and accurate for all those who served. I thank the hon. Member once again for bringing forward this debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
- Hansard source
Future of the Church of England
It is an honour to stand here in this empty Chamber to speak about the original purpose of this space, when it was a chapel in the Church of England. The old Chamber of the House of Commons, on which this space was modelled after the great fire of 1834, was St Stephen’s Chapel—formerly a royal church. It was given by the heirs of Henry VIII to Parliament to serve as its debating Chamber. Madam Deputy Speaker, your Chair stands on the altar steps. The Table with the Dispatch Boxes is where the lectern stood. I mention that because the link between this place and the Church of England is not merely ceremonial. The Prayers we say here at the start of every day are not just a nod to tradition. Our democracy is founded on Christian faith. This Parliament remains the law-giving power of the Church of England. We in this place have the responsibility to approve or disapprove the doctrine and the rules of the Church, and that is as it should be, because the Church of England is not some private club or just another eccentric denomination. The Church is a chaplain to the nation, and through the parish system, in which every square inch of England has its local church and its local priest, we are all members—we all belong. Even if you never set foot in your church from one year to the next, and even if you do not believe in its teachings, it is your church and you are its member. When I speak of the Church of England today, I am not speaking about the internal politics of the Anglican sect; I speak of the common creed of our country, the official religion of the English and the British nation, and the institution—older than the monarchy, and much older than Parliament—which made this country. It is no surprise that both the Church and the country itself are in a bad way, divided, internally confused and badly led. The Church is riven by deep disputes over doctrine and governance, and is literally leaderless, with even the process of choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury unclear, confused and contended. The country itself reflects that—unclear in its doctrines and its governance, profoundly precarious, chronically exposed to threats from without and within. It is at risk economically, culturally, socially and, I would say, morally. Last month, in the space of three days in one infamous week, this House authorised the killing of unborn children—of nine-month-old babies—and it passed a Bill to allow the killing of the elderly and disabled. I describe those laws in those stark terms not to provoke further controversy, but because those are the facts. We gave our consent to the greatest crime: the killing of the weak and most defenceless human beings. It was a great sin. If, standing here, I have any power to repent on behalf of this House, I hereby repent of what we did. In the reaction to these votes, and all around us in reaction to the state of the country and the world, something else is happening. There is a great hunger in society for a better way of living, and I want to use this opportunity to explain what that better way is and why we here in England have the means to follow it. The Jewish and Christian God is a God of nations. He is interested in people as individuals, but also as groups—as communities not only of kinship but of common worship, with a common God. Uniquely among the nations of the world, this nation—England, from which the United Kingdom grew—was founded and created consciously on the basis of the Bible and the story of the Hebrew people. In that sense, England is the oldest Christian country and the prototype of nations across the west. The story of England is the story of Christianity operating on a people to make the institutions and culture that have been uniquely stable and successful. The western model was forged and refined in England over a thousand years from the 9th to the 19th centuries. What is that model? It is simply this: that power should arrange itself for the benefit of all the people under it, and specifically for the poorest and weakest; that the law is there to protect the ordinary person against the abuse of power; and that every individual has equal dignity and freedom, including, crucially, the freedom of conscience, religion and belief, which makes space for other religions under the Christian shield—a secular space. Indeed, the idea of a secular space is a Christian concept that is meaningful only in a Christian world. These are ideas that only make sense if one accepts that we have some intrinsic value—a value that is given to us and is not of our own making or invention. Throughout the long years from the time of Alfred to the time of Victoria, it was assumed that a nation was a community of common worship and that our community —this country—worshipped the Christian God. Then, in the 20th century, another idea arose: that it was possible for a country to be neutral about God; that the public square was empty of any metaphysics; and that the route to freedom lay through the desert of materialism and individual reason—“no hell below us, above us only sky”. That idea was wrong. The horrors of the 20th century attest to that, not least in the west, where we escaped totalitarianism but have suffered our own catastrophes of social breakdown, social injustice, loneliness and emptiness on a chronic scale. Ugly and aggressive new threats are now arising, because we have found that in the absence of the Christian God, we do not have pluralism and tolerance, with everyone being nice to each other in a godless world. All politics is religious, and in abandoning one religion we simply create a space for others to move into.
- Hansard source
Future of the Church of England
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I do agree with him. He makes the point very well, and I absolutely acknowledge it. The paradox of our constitution is that under a monarchy, we have a system with the most developed political freedom in the world, and that under an established Church, we have a tradition of freedom of conscience and belief in which all religions can be accommodated. It is because the cross is at the centre, and I notice that the cross is above your Chair too, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, in abandoning one religion we simply create a space for others to move into as the dominant faiths. There are two religions moving into the space from which Christianity has been ejected, and one is Islam. In a debate yesterday, I said how much I find myself in agreement with Muslim colleagues in Parliament on moral and social matters. But as I have been saying, this is a Christian country—if it is a country at all—and I cannot be indifferent to the extent of the growth of Islam in recent decades. It is the other religion that worries me even more. This other religion is a hybrid of old and new ideas, and it does not have a proper name. I do not think that “woke” does justice to its seriousness. It is a combination of ancient paganism, Christian heresies and the cult of modernism, all mashed up into a deeply mistaken and deeply dangerous ideology of power that is hostile to the essential objects of our affections and our loyalties: families, communities and nations. It is explicitly and most passionately hostile to Christianity as the wellspring of the west. That religion, unlike Islam, must simply be destroyed, at least as a public doctrine. It must be banished from public life—from schools and universities, and from businesses and public services. It needs to be sent back to the fringes of eccentricity, like the modern druids who invest Stonehenge in my constituency with a theology that is seen as mad but harmless because its followers are so few and no one serious takes them seriously. We can no longer pretend, as people did in the 20th century, that we can be neutral or indifferent to God or to the public square being a godless desert. The fact is that the strong gods are back, and we have to choose which god to worship. I suggest we worship the God who came in the weakest form, Jesus Christ. This God is a jealous god—it is him or nothing—and we have to own our Christian story, or repudiate it. Not to own it is to repudiate it, and to repudiate Christianity is not only to sever ourselves from our past, but to cut off the source of all the things we value now and that we need in the future, such as freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and human rights. Without the Christian God, in whose teaching these things have their source, these are inventions—mere non-existent aspirations. To worship human rights is to worship fairies, but if we own our story and remember the real sources of our civilisation, we can have these things and make them real—real freedom and tolerance and dignity, a culture of love and, crucially, a culture of humanity. We are in the age of the machine, and a great choice confronts us: whether to make machines in the image of fallen man, bent on exploitation and domination with mankind in its sights, or to make them what they properly are, the servants of mankind able to help us make a better world. To conclude, a wind is blowing, a storm is coming and when it hits we are going to learn if our house is built on rock or on sand, but we have been here before. The reformers of the 11th and the 16th centuries, the Puritans in the 17th century, the Evangelicals in the 19th century all brought this country back from the edge—from idolatry, error or just plain indifference, and from all the social and political crises that indifference to Christianity brought about—and they each in their generation restored this country to itself. A new restoration is needed now, with a revival of the faith, a recovery of a Christian politics and a re-founding of this nation on the teachings that Alfred made the basis of the common law of England all those centuries ago. This is a mission for the Church under its next leader, whoever that is; it is a mission for this place—the old chapel that became the wellspring of western democracy—and for us, its Members; and it is a mission for our whole country. It is the route to a prosperous modernity founded on respect for human dignity, responsibility for the created world and the worship of God.
- Hansard source
Support for Cycle Manufacturers
It is not just cycle manufacturers that are having to pedal hard to survive under this Government. With business survey after business survey stating that tax is the biggest worry for business, will the Minister take this opportunity to assure businesses that the Chancellor will not be coming back to burden them with more in her Budget this autumn?
- Hansard source
Support for Cycle Manufacturers
Well, except for the fact that the whole House will have heard that the Government are not prepared to rule out saddling cycle manufacturers and other businesses with more taxes this autumn. Will the Minister at the very least assure the House that he and his fellow Business Ministers are making representations to the Treasury that businesses really cannot take any more tax rises?
- Hansard source
NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care
I declare an interest, as a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund.. Many people in the public sector receive a significant pension contribution, but they are not aware of its value. The Pension Schemes Bill currently going through Parliament presents an opportunity to place on someone’s pay cheque and pay offer the annual value of that incredibly important contribution to a public sector pension fund. That is something that very few people in the private sector are now able to enjoy, and it feels like it is undervalued by those who benefit from it. Will she consider taking that opportunity?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Further to the previous question, people the beautiful constituency of West Worcestershire look back in anger at some of the decisions made by Labour during its first year in office—not least the decision in the Budget to bring in a tax on my local children’s hospice, Acorns, which has added £400,000 to its bills. Will the Leader of the House find time between now and recess to schedule a debate, or a statement from a Health Minister, on renewing the children’s hospice grant from 2026 onwards?
- Hansard source
Ukraine
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Ukraine
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Ukraine
Order. That is the fifth time I have heard a phone go off. Silence is golden.
- Hansard source
Social Media: Misinformation and Algorithms
We now come to the first Select Committee statement on behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Dame Chi Onwurah will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, and not the relevant Government Minister, although Front Benchers may take part in questioning. I call Dame Chi Onwurah.
- Hansard source
Trade Agreements: Implementation
When is a trade deal not a trade deal? It has been nine weeks since the Prime Minister announced a deal to protect steel from US tariffs, and 10 weeks since the Secretary of State said that the India deal was “signed, sealed and delivered.” Will the Secretary of State publish the details of these important deals without delay before recess, or will he apologise for misleading the House?
- Hansard source
Trade Agreements: Implementation
indicated assent.