Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Lady has made an eloquent case for how defective the legislation was. Why did the Government not oppose sections 46 and 47 when they were in opposition? Does she think that they were wrong not to oppose them? She evidently thinks that the legislation was faulty, so why did her own party support it?
It is very good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. As a member of the shadow Cabinet, I am speaking with the permission of Mr Speaker and the Clerk, because this is a matter of the utmost importance to my constituents. On the petition map, Herefordshire is a dark brown colour, showing that the two Herefordshire constituencies have the highest proportion of constituents who have signed the petition—and mine has the highest of all. That is because so many of my constituents—1,159—are veterans of special forces and other regiments, and I speak on their behalf. These are men—many of them now in their 70s—who have had their lives blighted. It is a nonsense to suggest somehow that there is political scaremongering here; these men have sat in front of me, and with all the astonishing bravery, vigour and fortitude they have shown, they have flinched in the face of the legal challenge, and the vexation and worry it has caused them, their families and their communities. We must recognise that. I also speak on behalf of Anthony Daly, a great friend of mine who died at the age of 23 in the Hyde Park bombing, on the soil of England, because of the IRA. Let it never be forgotten that the IRA is not just any other terrorist organisation. It was the most professional terrorist organisation in the world at the time. It trained and supplied other organisations of a similar kind around the world. It was therefore astonishing for this country to send young men and some women into that cauldron to defend all the rights that we take for granted today. They were men who acted under orders and in a chain of command—on the Queen’s business—and who cannot now respond, in many of my constituents’ cases, to the terrible injustice that is being wrought at the moment, which is itself already proving, even among this group, dangerous and deleterious to morale. There is something fundamentally dishonest about the Government’s position, which is that they have not bothered to explain the basis of the legal reasoning that is used. I invite the Secretary of State to clarify that basis in this Chamber today, and if he cannot, I want him to write to me so that we can share, in public, the basis of the legal reasoning. Sections 46 and 47 were not controversial when they were passed. They were passed with the support of the then Opposition, who are now the Government. It is therefore absurd to hear colleagues from across the Chamber suggest that they somehow always disagreed with them, or that they have now suddenly discovered some Whips’ interest. Will the Secretary of State give us all the answer to the following questions? Why did the Government abandon the appeal? How exactly is the legislation in sections 46 and 47 incompatible with the convention rights? Did the Government give thought to allowing that supposed incompatibility to continue, given that they are under no legal obligation to cure it? Why did they not simply allow the pattern of the normal course of law to proceed and let the Supreme Court make that decision? Above all, why did they not decide on their own solution before they decided to create all this uncertainty by abandoning the appeal?
The Secretary of State described the situation in law as illegal, but he never pressed the question of the appeal to the Supreme Court, which would have decided the question of whether it was in fact illegal. Was that decision taken on the basis of law, and if so, what were the grounds for it?
12. What plans she has to increase community involvement in the planning process.
I am sure the Minister agrees it is vital that local residents’ concerns are properly listened to, especially on major planning decisions. Having listened to many constituents in places such as New Deer, Kintore and Rothienorman who are facing huge amounts of energy infrastructure, I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have created a statutory duty of consultation for infrastructure in Scotland. In Committee, the Minister argued against it and said that the Scottish Government’s discretionary power was satisfactory. Will he please explain why the Government believe that a discretionary power, which my constituents fear will simply be ignored, provides meaningful engagement while the statutory right that I proposed would not?
Those of us who advocate for the North sea oil and gas sector are not climate change deniers. We are realists who understand that we will need oil and gas for years to come; that we would be replacing our domestic supply with imports that have four times the carbon intensity; that China emits in 10 days what we emit in a year; and that we will not transition to cleaner energy if we make ourselves poorer. I recognise what today’s report says, but does the Secretary of State accept that increasing our use of imported gas will only make us more carbon intensive in the future?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I begin by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have spoken at length on this subject, in the last Parliament as a member of the Transport Committee and from the then Government Back Benches, and since the last general election as a shadow Minister. I begin with a simple concept: politicians should never ask someone to do something they are not willing to do themselves. I will put on the record that I am not willing to buy an electric car, and therefore anything that essentially uses taxpayers’ money to produce electric vehicles that so few people in the United Kingdom actually wish to buy—including, it seems from the weekend’s media, the Transport Secretary—is something that we cannot support. With fleet sales removed, new EV registrations prove that this is just not a technology that people trust, desire or are willing to spend their hard-earned money on. The Conservatives previously pushed the zero-emission vehicle mandate transition date back to 2035, but this Government have brought it forward to 2030. The need for this subsidy––let us call it what it is––is a clear indication that the Government are struggling to persuade consumers to switch to electric vehicles. That failure stems from two fundamental issues: the high cost of electric cars and their lack of reliability in terms of both range and charging infrastructure. The Government will say, I am sure, that we formerly had a subsidy scheme—and that is true: we did, but it was used to create an EV industry in Britain, supporting it to overcome the barriers of entry into the UK market. When that EV industry was created, we ended the subsidy. But now, to cover their mistakes and the unrealistic nature of their targets, Ministers have been forced into using taxpayers’ money to pay for EV adoption and to mask the consequences of their own policy failures. In effect, taxpayers’ money is being used to subsidise a transition that the public are not willing to make. We warned the Government that that would be the outcome. However, driven by an ideological approach to net zero, they ignored those warnings. This is yet another example of how the Government’s unrealistic climate targets are contributing to the rising cost of living for ordinary British families. Many other countries have opted for a 2035 target, recognising the economic and logistical challenges of any earlier deadline. In contrast, the UK’s 2030 mandate risks placing an undue financial burden on families here, forcing them to purchase more expensive vehicles while others abroad can wait and benefit from falling prices. We on the Opposition side believe in a demand-led transition to cleaner vehicles, one that respects consumer choice and understands the whole range of technologies available, following a genuine whole-system analysis—not just the tailpipe. Families should have the freedom to choose whether they want to drive petrol, diesel, hybrid, electric or other new technologies, and to make that transition when the market and infrastructure are ready, and when prices are more affordable. The Government’s approach has already had real-world consequences. We have seen the closure of Stellantis in Luton, in part due to insufficient demand for electric vehicles. That should serve as a warning.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we look at the marketplace out there for both private and commercial vehicles—particularly vans, heavy goods vehicles and larger vehicles—those who have to take a personal financial risk on them are not choosing to do so. Particularly in the HGV sector, they prefer to look at transitional fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil to keep their fleets on the road. That choice genuinely cleaner, but does not cost them two, three or maybe even four times the price for the same vehicle in an electric format—which, of course, comes with a lower payload, because the batteries are so heavy that it cannot legally take the same weight of goods. Those choices that real people in the real world are making should drive what the Government do to ensure that they get the transition to a greener form of transport right, rather than just flogging the dead horse of a failing technology that nobody seems willing to buy unless heavily bribed to do so with their own taxpayers’ money through fleet sales and the like—and, in this case, through this motion that seeks to spend even more of that taxpayers’ money on propping up a product that just does not have the consumer demand underneath it. It is for those reasons that the Conservatives will oppose this motion.
Surely the hon. Lady has come to the crux of the point, which is that no Minister has so far been able to give us that reassurance. She sincerely states her desire not to see veterans subject to lawfare, but they have not had that reassurance. Whatever the inadequacies of the current legislation, it provides protections, and we have no reassurance that they will not be removed.
Does my hon. Friend agree it is time that the hand-picked Attorney General, Lord Hermer, from whom the Prime Minister is taking legal advice on repealing the Act, should be sacked, taking his unpatriotic views with him? We all need to stand by our veterans.
When the Minister has met major house builders, what have they told him about the chances of hitting the Government’s target of building 1.5 million new houses in this Parliament?
The Secretary of State has said that he wants to tell some hard truths, so can he tell the House directly—without spin and waffle, and without dodging the question—how much in cash terms it would cost the UK to get to net zero, who would pay the cost, and how much the UK getting to net zero would reduce global temperatures by?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are elected to this House to hold the Executive to account and to ask questions on behalf of our constituents. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, in common with many Ministers, is treating this House and our constituents with contempt by not even attempting to answer the questions asked of him, probably because those answers would be embarrassing to him. There is getting to be very little point in asking questions of Ministers at the Dispatch Box. What can you do, as Deputy Speaker, to encourage Ministers to answer the questions that are asked of them?
indicated assent.
Never!
I completely concur with what my hon. Friend and neighbour has said about Cheshire West and Cheshire, but the roads in Cheshire East are a disgrace. As for the money—the £53 million that my hon. Friend mentioned—I have tried to get to the bottom of where that money has been spent. In fact, I have had to resort to freedom of information requests to find out where Cheshire East is spending the money—the council supposedly does not know the location, the area or the postcode; it has merely a job number. I find that hard to understand, because how do the council tell the contractors where to go? Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this money is being spent neither properly nor fairly across the council area?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. This delegated legislation follows on from legislation laid by the previous Government as part of their response to the independent domestic homicide sentencing review undertaken by Clare Wade KC. As the Minister outlined, the regulations amend schedule 21 to add aggravating factors for when the murder is connected with the end of an intimate personal relationship, and when the murder involves strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation. The previous Government, of course, gave consideration to introducing these measures, as they were determined to identify approaches to reduce the rate and nature of violence perpetrated against women and girls. Our earlier legislative changes introduced statutory aggravating factors for repeated controlling or coercive behaviour by the offender, and sustained and excessive violence towards the victim, but, as the Minister will know, the Government chose not to take forward these specific measures at that time. I am sure that he has been privy to the full range of official advice on these amendments, even if he has ultimately decided to move forward with them now. The Sentencing Council articulated the counter-argument to their introduction in its consultation response, focusing on the challenges of an approach that distinguishes through method rather than the impact of violence of one type or another. The Sentencing Council also expressed concerns that trials might face complex evidential questions about what constitutes an intimate personal relationship. It was not unreasonable to pause and give consideration to those concerns, but we recognise why the Government have now chosen to proceed with these measures. As the Minister explained, in over a third of the murder cases studied in the Wade review, “the murder occurred at the end, or perceived end, of the relationship.” The use of strangulation was also frequently involved, a method of killing that is disproportionately used by men against women, and which has long been recognised as a marker of escalating abuse and lethal violence. The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law on homicide and sentencing more generally. So if there is a residual concern about how all the different aggravating and mitigating factors interact, that review will present an opportunity for the Government to consider the matter in the round in a way that might assuage concerns about these individual measures. In conclusion, for now, we respect the Government’s settled view that they believe these measures may on balance bring benefit, and we will not oppose them this evening. But I say to the Minister that the Government do need to make up their mind. The benefit of introducing measures such as these is somewhat muted, because at the same time, the Government are introducing a whole raft of other measures that make the efforts to tackle violence against women and girls and particularly the fight for justice for them harder. The Government have committed to letting out offenders after serving a third of their sentences simply for not breaking the rules while in prison. They voted against our measures to allow victims to appeal unduly lenient sentences and to protect victims from having their impact statements unduly interfered with. They have introduced automatic release in relation to parole breaches, rather than keeping people in prison until it is safe to let them out. And last week, they welcomed a report that recommended even greater discount for guilty pleas, which, when combined with the Gauke recommendations, could see a domestic abuser serve just one fifth of their sentence. Measures like these this evening are not going to change the situation, and victims will notice. They will know when they are being given something with one hand only to have twice as much taken away with the other, and we will hold the Government to account for that every step of the way.
Does the Home Secretary agree with President Macron’s analysis last week that the reason people want to come here is that the UK is perceived as being attractive to illegal migrants—what President Macron referred to as “pull factors”, with one of his MPs referring to Britain as “El Dorado”? If the Home Secretary does agree with the French President, what is she doing to reduce those pull factors?
Community support is always vital for development, and with 95% of planning applications already decided by officials under delegated powers, it is clear that that democratic voice can be missing. Can the Minister tell the House why, taking that in tandem with the devolution White Paper, which envisages abolishing around 75% of councillors who represent their local residents on planning committees in England, local communities do not deserve more of a say, rather than less, in the planning process?
There has been a 66% reduction in new affordable housing starts in London under Mayor Khan, and I note that Hillingdon Labour vigorously opposes the Conservative council’s plans for a new affordable housing site at Otterfield Road in Yiewsley. Will the Secretary of State condemn the failings of these Labour politicians on housing, and will she acknowledge that whether someone is a homeless person, a rough sleeper or an aspirational first-time buyer, this Government are failing those in housing need?
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Before we begin the debate, I wish to make a statement about the House’s rule relating to matters sub judice. As the House will know, there are ongoing criminal cases involving the prosecution of British veterans who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. And, while there are as yet no criminal cases arising from the Clonoe inquest, the Government have initiated a judicial review of the inquest’s findings. Mr Speaker has today granted a waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings relating to historical troubles-related deaths. References to these cases should be limited to the context, and to the events that led to the cases, but not to the detail of the cases themselves, nor the names of those involved in them. Members should, as always, be mindful of the fact that these are properly matters for the courts, and not for this House, and take special care to avoid saying anything that might interfere with the course of justice.
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Thank you for that point of order, and for highlighting the conflict between this debate and the matter to be considered in the House later. I have considerable discretion in who is called and when they are called, and I will seek to exercise that in the most effective way possible.
Order. This is not an ongoing conversation. Ms Jones, please continue.
Order. The hon. Lady made important points, but interventions must be short.
Order. We do not have clapping in the House of Commons, so please restrain yourselves. I have allowed substantial contributions to enable the debate to get under way, but we will now have to move to contributions of around five minutes.
Order. Please refrain from applause.
The Chair will change during the next contribution. If not everyone is able to be called to speak, it is my responsibility and not Ms Lewell’s, because I chose to allow more substantial contributions for the benefit of the debate.
Today, we speak on behalf of our veterans and the 176,000 members of the public who have so far signed the petition to give veterans protection against the vexatious legal pursuit of our brave heroes. Last week, when I raised this in the House, the Prime Minister dismissed it as “political point scoring.” He is wrong; it is a matter of justice, a matter of ensuring that those who risked their lives to protect our citizens during the troubles know that the state stands behind them. The Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—not naive people—issued a joint statement last week in which they said: “Inconsistent application of justice—particularly where it revisits incidents already thoroughly investigated—serves only to retraumatise veterans and undermine public confidence.” I agree with that statement entirely. It is exactly consistent with the views of every veteran I have spoken to, and I have spoken to a rather large number of them since February, when I first raised this matter. Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice. The legal witch hunt will not end in Northern Ireland; it will cast a shadow over every future conflict that our armed forces engage in and undermine their abilities to defend us. I am a strong advocate of human rights. I think I am the only person in the House to have defeated Governments from both sides, both in the House and in court, on matters of human rights. I take those rights extremely seriously, but this issue is driven more by politics and its exigencies than by human rights. Take the inquiry process, which both my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) referred to. The Secretary of State will tell us later, but I imagine that by reinstating the inquiry process, the Government believe they are addressing the implied article 2 right to investigate purportedly unlawful killings. I imagine that is what they are trying to do. Indeed, The Guardian this morning, as we have heard, referred again to the Secretary of State claiming that the Government are protecting the right to investigate 202 murders of British Army soldiers. Really? I wonder whether that claim comes with an undertaking to take witness statements from the 200 terrorists who committed those murders—who, incidentally, I say to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, were given pardons by Tony Blair as part of a peace process that began some 40 years ago. I think 423 were released from prison with pardons, and approximately 200 so-called “on-the-runs” received comfort letters. That is not this Act—that is then, yet it continues to exist now. The Veterans Commissioners continued: “There can be no moral equivalence between those who served in uniform to uphold peace and the rule of law, and those who sought to destroy it through acts of terrorism.” Again, I could not agree more. The largest group of people killed during the troubles, by a vast margin, were murdered by paramilitaries, to use the current euphemism for terrorists. They were killed by terrorists. Every single one of those 2,000 people killed was an unlawful killing, to use the phrasing of the coroners courts these days. We do not need a court to establish that. How many of those IRA murders will be subject to inquiry? On the current listing—we have 33 listed—just two such cases, out of 2,000. That is because the major driver for these inquiries is the IRA-Sinn Féin effort to hide their own barbaric acts behind a freedom-fighting façade, trying to rewrite history with themselves as the heroes and the British state as the villains. That is why battles such as Coagh, Clonoe and, very likely soon, Loughgall feature so large in the demands for inquiries and the prosecution of long-retired, innocent British soldiers. All three of those actions were humiliating defeats for the IRA. Let me be clear: all of the IRA members who died in those exchanges—so-called “victims” in this context—were actively in the process of committing atrocities. They were trying to murder innocent people. At Coagh, they planned to murder an off-duty Ulster Defence Regiment officer. At Clonoe, they attacked the Coalisland police station using an armour-piercing machine gun in an attempt to murder the officers inside. At Loughgall, they drove a bomb-laden digger to blow up a police station and were armed and ready to murder any survivors. All were armed, dangerous and intent on murder. Many of them had killed before, making them a fatal risk to our soldiers—a risk our soldiers had to cope with in split-second decisions. Those are the people we will put on trial if we allow them to lose their protection that we ought to be giving our veterans today. Look at the individuals involved, starting with Coagh where the inquest heard about Michael Ryan. Ryan was probably responsible for many murders; I can cite two. He shot two UDR officers—one in front of little children at a crossing, the other in front of the officer’s 13-year-old son. That is the sort of people we are dealing with. As for the IRA’s greatest defeat, Loughgall, the weapons recovered at the scene had been used in over 40 previous murders—there is no doubt about that. Of the IRA members there, McKearney and Arthurs were both involved in the Ballygawley police station attack, which killed a further two policemen. James Lynagh—nicknamed “The Executioner” by the Royal Ulster Constabulary—was believed to have been involved in more than 30 killings, including the cold-blooded assassination of the 80-year-old Sir Norman Stronge, who was largely blind and deaf, as well as his son in front of him. As for Patrick Kelly, who was the leader of that attack, he led the self-styled East Tyrone brigade, which is believed to have killed around 250 people before Loughgall. By the way, he also took part in the second attempt to assassinate brave UDR officer Glen Espie, who is sitting behind me in the Gallery. He fought off the assassins on two occasions—he was shot twice and fought off IRA assassins twice. If they had not been stopped, there is no doubt that all of these killers would have continued their psychopathic campaign of murder. The IRA’s campaign of violence was indiscriminate and extended far beyond the island of Ireland. I say to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire that the number was not 722 if you include the police officers and UDR officers. If you include them, 1,073 servants of the British state were killed in the course of defending innocent civilians from those murderers. The IRA is trying to equate the British Government’s actions with that psychopathic behaviour, but of course nothing could be further from the truth. There is ample evidence of the Army taking enormous risks to arrest rather than take the often safer option of killing the terrorists. Consider the arrest—not the killing—of the South Armagh sniper. He killed seven people, but he was arrested and not killed. Consider the arrest—not the killing—of the killers of Captain Westmacott. They were arrested—not killed—by the rest of his patrol. Even today’s Daily Mail mentioned the rescue of Bernadette McAliskey. There was an attempt to kill her by the Ulster Defence Association. British soldiers rescued her even though she was effectively a political arm of the Irish National Liberation Army. The clearest demonstration of our real strategy is that, while 1,073 British forces, soldiers and policemen were killed by republican terrorists up until 1994, 145 paramilitaries were killed and 428 were taken prisoner. That means that around three or four were taken prisoner for every one killed. Seven British soldiers or policemen died for every IRA person who was killed. That tells us the strategy and it tells us what the IRA is trying to reverse.
Absolutely—the phrase I would use is “heroic restraint”. Under those circumstances, restraint means putting their own lives and the lives of their comrades on the line. That is what was going on there, that was the decision that was being taken, and that is what is being challenged today. My right hon. Friend is right about that, and that restraint was institutional. It was not simply heroic soldiers, although of course it was that as well. The yellow card system demanded restraint and issued warnings of proportionality. Every time a British soldier killed a paramilitary, it was subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny, and when that process failed we ensured the matter was properly investigated. Remember the Saville inquiry, which cost £200 million, took 12 years and consisted of 5,000 pages. What other country in the world would review its own behaviour in that way? I am not going to actually give all the answers, but Members should consider in their own mind whether some of our allies might not have gone quite so far to give everybody justice. Our soldiers were held to the highest standards of law, yet our Government are rewarding that by effectively threatening them in their retirement. Remember: we have been talking about human rights. That is not a proper reflection of their human rights. They are human beings too, and they have human rights. We should remind ourselves that human rights are founded in natural justice. They do not spring out of the air; they are founded in natural justice. In this process, there is no natural justice for our brave veterans nor, frankly, for the real innocent victims of the troubles. The process gives neither. The Government are understandably struggling to find a solution, and the Secretary of State knows that I have some sympathy for his position. Let me tell him the criterion for success, because it is very simple. The Government must completely remove the threat of prosecution from our brave veterans who have served their country well and who have already been through the judicial review of every action they took. If the Government repeal the legacy Act without a robust replacement—that is the key point—we hand the narrative back to those who seek to rewrite history. I accept that mistakes were sometimes made, and where they were, those responsible must be held to account. That has been done. But we must not allow politically motivated lawfare to dismantle the very capabilities that make our armed forces precise, lawful, effective and among the best in the world.
No, I will not. What young person today would sign up to serve, knowing that their reward could be a courtroom in retirement? It was through our soldiers’ measured actions that the IRA’s barbaric campaign of terror was confronted and diminished. The number of people killed by the IRA fell by 94% between the periods 1970 to 1974 and 1994 to 1998. That outcome matters. Our soldiers’ intervention prevented countless more deaths. I have now called on the Government six times to end this campaign of a retrospective parody of justice, but I have so far received no meaningful answer. I hope we get one today. We talk a lot about human rights. In my related Adjournment debate, I read a poem that I first heard at a regimental Remembrance Day service, and I will read it again today because it is extraordinarily relevant: “It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the peace camp organiser, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag. It is the soldier, not the politician…who has given these freedoms.” Those who freely talk about human rights would do well to remember that our rights, our law, our democracy and our nation were protected by the very veterans who are at risk today. Let us all make one promise: that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the very nation they have so bravely protected.
The hon. Gentleman says the chance is vanishingly small, yet the Clonoe inquest found there were four unlawful killings, which implies that four cases will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Will the hon. Member give way?
Our veterans do not need to read the Bill; they just need to look at the outcome of the Clonoe inquiry—four potential manslaughter prosecutions.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am grateful to him. Last week, I met a number of veterans of the Northern Ireland troubles in my constituency, and they made the exact point that he is making: they never went out to kill; they went out to defend British citizens. Is it not particularly outrageous that the proposal suggests some sort of equivalence between the killers and those who were appointed to protect? As he says, it will impose a terrible chilling effect on recruitment to our services.
The Home Secretary is an intelligent woman, and she must realise that this UK-France migration co-operation is a drop in the ocean, given that since it was announced, another 1,375 people have made that dangerous and illegal crossing. She might not like Rwanda, but can she confirm that one of the other things she is working on is finding another safe third country where 100% of people who cross the channel illegally can be processed?
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Post Office really is the Heineken of Government services: it reaches parts of the UK that other arms of government do not. The Post Office is much more than a business; it is a vital part of the UK’s social and economic fabric. It connects communities, supports local economies and ensures access to essential services across the country. From rural villages in constituencies like mine to inner cities, postmasters are trusted figures who provide a lifeline for people who rely on face-to-face services, particularly the elderly, the digitally excluded and small businesses. The network plays an increasingly important role delivering banking services and hubs as the traditional bank network continues to close. While the number of letters sent has declined and more Government services are online or direct to bank accounts, there are areas where the Post Office has seen strong growth: bank deposits to post offices are up by 68%, parcels up by 68% and tracked priority mail has risen by 72%. The Minister promised that the Government would publish the Green Paper on the Post Office in the first half of 2025, so I will give him that—it was nearly there. The Government clearly want to get this consultation out before recess when there is arguably less parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the public to respond to the consultation over the summer. The Green Paper seeks to reduce the taxpayer subsidy over time, but of course, with 50,000 workers throughout Britain, the Post Office itself faces a £45 million hike in its bill from the national insurance jobs tax. The post offices that are eligible for retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief have seen a 140% increase in their business rates. The Employment Rights Bill will cost the Post Office another £8 million. It is no wonder that Nigel Railton, the Post Office chairman, blamed the autumn Budget for increasing costs and said that it was why the Post Office needs a fresh start. The Minister told the House on 8 April that “access criteria have already been published that commit the Government to provide 11,500 post offices.”—[Official Report, 8 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 750.] He says in the Green Paper that his preference is to maintain the size of the network. Will he commit today to there being 11,500 post office outlets at the end of this Parliament? Did the Government consider reducing the branch requirement in the Green Paper? If so, why did they change their mind? Was he advised by his officials that it would take the closure of one in five post offices to end the network subsidy? If that is not what he was told, what was he told? Where is the cut-off point for that subsidy? The Minister says that the Government will consult on a change to access requirements as it could be argued that they are too stringent, but for rural areas they are not. Approximately 14% of post office branches are the last shop in the village—there are many such branches in my constituency—so will the Minister confirm that rural branches will not be closed just to be replaced by others in city centres? Does he not realise that for many rural areas, the post office is the only shop for miles around and is therefore the only place one can access free cash? How much did the Post Office get from the framework agreement with the banks? Should it not get a better and more long-term agreement? How much will the Government ask Fujitsu to pay towards the £2 billion estimated cost of compensating the postmasters who were wrongly accused over the Horizon system? The Minister appears to have kicked Post Office mutualisation into the long grass. I can see why he would not want to do it during the time of the inquiry, but could there be a pilot during this Parliament? Post offices and the postmasters who run them are the backbone of our local communities, so I urge the public to take this opportunity to champion their local post office and reply to this summer consultation.
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She comes to the Chamber today sounding rather pleased with herself, but I am afraid she has no reason to. A year ago, she promised to smash the gangs—she said again and again that that was her plan. Indeed, it was her only plan, yet today there is no mention of what was once her favourite catchphrase. That is because her claim to smash the gangs has become a joke—an embarrassment to her and to the Government. We warned that law enforcement alone would not be enough, as did the National Crime Agency, but she did not listen, and what then happened? The 12 months following 5 July last year have been the worst such period in history, with small boat crossings at 44,359—up 40% year on year. The first 13 days of July have also been the worst in history, with 2,510 in less than two weeks—up 213% year on year. This calendar year so far has been the worst in history as well—up 57% on last year. The Home Secretary is setting records, just all the wrong ones. These boat crossings are now the worst ever. Does the Home Secretary accept that she has lost control of our borders and is failing in her most basic duty to protect the United Kingdom? The Home Secretary says she has a new deal with France, yet President Macron says it needs EU agreement. Is that true? If so, has the EU provided it? A deal must of course involve an agreed number, yet when the Home Secretary is asked, she is unable to say what numbers are involved. Will she now come clean and tell Parliament what number, if any, has been agreed? If there is no agreement with the EU, and no agreed number as part of the deal, then there is no deal at all, only vacuous spin. The only number we have seen reported is just 50 illegal immigrants a week. That number was put to the Prime Minister last Thursday, and he did not deny it. Fifty a week represents only 6% of illegal arrivals, meaning 94% could stay. Does the Home Secretary seriously think that allowing 94% of illegal immigrants to stay will be any kind of deterrent? Her claim to smash the gangs was a gimmick and so is her 6% returns deal. The truth is this: the only way to fix this is to remove, without judicial process, every single illegal arrival as soon as they get here, either to their country of origin or to a third country. That would be a real deterrent. We saw that approach work in Australia about 10 years ago and such a scheme—[Interruption.] I am glad hon. Members mention Rwanda. Such a scheme for the UK was ready to start in July last year. The previous Government had done all the legal and logistical work needed. All the Home Secretary had to do was press go, but she and the Prime Minister cancelled the scheme just days before it was due to start, and as a result we now see record numbers crossing. Will she now admit that she made a terrible mistake, and will she now start a proper 100% removals deterrent? The damage done by illegal immigration at this scale is immense. Far from closing asylum hotels as the Government promised, there are now nearly 3,000 more people in asylum hotels than at the time of the last election. I have personally witnessed rampant illegal working from the very hotels that the Home Secretary runs. I saw Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat bikes in the compound of an asylum hotel whose residents have no right to work. Will she at least commit today to ending illegal working from the very hotels that she runs? We also see reports of migrants based in hotels being charged with serious crimes, including rape and sexual assaults on women and children. Louise Casey has warned that a significant proportion of sexual offences are committed by those seeking asylum—cases like that of 29-year-old Afghan, Sadeq Nikzad, convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl. His defence counsel claimed that he did not understand that was wrong due to cultural differences. This madness has to stop. The Home Secretary cancelled a proper deterrent plan just days before it was due to start. Her claim to smash the gangs lies in tatters. She has presided over the highest number of illegal small boat crossings in history. Will she now apologise to the House and to the country for her appalling failure?
T6. On that note, many of my constituents living on new freehold developments such as Mortimer Park in Driffield would like to see residents being given the power to strip those unaccountable estate management firms of their responsibility for shared space and let the local authority adopt that land. Is it the Government’s intention to legislate to make that possible?