Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Order.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Order. I just make the point to the hon. Member that the hon. Gentleman is clearly not going to give way, which is in his gift.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
I call Andrew Pakes.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
indicated assent.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
The hon. Member will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, and the vote will be on the Bill as it stands. We have had a clear undertaking from the Dispatch Box as to what will happen in Committee.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
From responses to my written parliamentary questions, we know that the median earner can expect to pay £273 more in tax this year under Labour. When the Chancellor sat on the Opposition Benches, she described freezing tax thresholds as “picking the pockets” of working people. Does the Chancellor accept that she is now the one picking the pockets of working people?
- Hansard source
Hospitality Sector
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. As we have heard, the hospitality sector forms a cornerstone of not only our economy, but our society and community. In my beautiful Arundel and South Downs constituency—I beg to differ with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney)—it binds together communities, as we come together in cafés, pubs, restaurants, hotels and even garden centres. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), hospitality plays a disproportionate role in providing the next generation with their first step on the career ladder, offering rewarding employment and what has always been a fair and balanced offering of flexible work. It gives many people their second chance in life, as well as many people a chance to supplement their retirement. The industry employees 3.5 million people, with the vast majority of those jobs in small and medium-sized businesses that any Government should be on the side of, and we heard wonderful examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) discussed its impact on employment and the flexible nature of the working, and he gave his insights about the higher job satisfaction, which we also heard from others. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate, and how it will no doubt obfuscate around the frankly hostile environment that this Government have created for the hospitality industry. Colleagues should listen attentively, because what it does not mention will be as revealing as that which it does. Last summer—in fact, this time last year—prospective Labour MPs toured their constituencies and the airwaves, and they promised anyone who would listen that they would not raise taxes. Just a few short months later, the Chancellor slapped a jobs tax on every single employer across the land. Pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels now face the £3.4 billion extra cost. It was a political choice, imposed by this Government, that has almost uniquely ravaged the hospitality industry—it was a perfect storm for the industry —particularly, as we heard from many Members, through the change in the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000 a year. Apparently, that change was made capriciously by the Treasury at the last moment, when its Chancellor once again failed to get her sums to add up. One of the UK’s leading hospitality entrepreneurs, Luke Johnson, put it best: “It is heartbreaking that Britain’s proud record of innovation, flexibility and business success is being thrown away thanks to that old knee-jerk Labour instinct of taxing success.” The reality is that one third of hospitality businesses are now operating at a loss because of the Chancellor’s tax on jobs. Unemployment is already rising; in fact, it is up in every one of the nine months for which Labour has been in office. Six out of 10 hospitality businesses report that they have had to take the decision that no business owner ever wants to take. We should remember that many of these are family businesses that provide employment to the local people they live and work alongside. However, 63% say they have no alternative but to reduce the hours available for staff. Kate Nicholls, the chief executive officer of UKHospitality, said that these measures “will simply force businesses to cut jobs, freeze recruitment, cancel planned investment, reduce trading hours and, in the worst-case scenario”— as we heard about with pubs today— “close their doors for good.” It is difficult to overstate the catastrophic impact that this Government are having on the hospitality industry. Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for securing this important debate, to which there have been contributions from across the House. But as some Members have said, there is another iceberg on the way that this Government and this Chancellor are steering us straight towards: the trade-union written, 1970s-inspired Employment Rights Bill. No Labour Minister has ever been able to name a real business that supports it—imagine that—and I invite this Minister perhaps to do so when he winds up. The reality is that very few employers in the hospitality sector will actually be aware of the perils facing them. They will be so focused on running their business, rather than wading through 300 pages of tightly typed Whitehall speak. It is available in the Table Office right now, should anyone feel difficulty sleeping on these hot summer nights. The Bill, just like the Chancellor’s tax measures, disproportionately impacts on the hospitality industry. It will remove the valued freedom that employers and employees have to adjust their hours flexibly. What sort of business do we think that will hit? It will hit seasonal businesses, and most hospitality businesses have a strong element of seasonality. This will force young people, the vulnerable and sometimes those with a chequered employment record out of employment. Once again, it is even worse for pubs, because the Bill reserves a special measure for the fact that landlords, hotel owners and restaurant managers will be forced to act as banter bouncers, asking punters whose private conversations may conceivably cause any unknown offence to their staff to leave their premises. By the way, that is nothing to do with sexual harassment, which is dealt with in a separate clause, and is rightly already illegal. The outcome will be a £5 billion bill for business under the Government’s impact assessment and countless—literally tens of thousands—of job losses. Let me be clear: even Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, a socialist in office, saw it as wise to give this sort of economic self-harm a wide berth. On top of that, if someone’s business is still surviving, and they have the temerity for it to be a private, family-owned business, they will face the family business death tax. I do not want to pre-empt the Minister, who is a decent man. I suspect we will hear a little go a very long way. He will talk about the 40% business rate relief coming to the aid of hospitality, despite the reality that the Government have in practice more than doubled business rates bills for businesses in the sector, compared with the 75% relief on offer under the previous Government. We may also hear about the 1p cut on beer duty—that old trope that Governments of all flavours, if we are being honest, like to trot out. But the reality—the hard truth—is that the average pub would have to sell an additional 850,000 pints a year for that 1p cut to offset the additional costs imposed on them by the Chancellor’s job tax. I do not necessarily believe that most of us are equal to that particular challenge. We may hear of the Government’s unequivocal support for hospitality, but words are cheap. It is difficult to reconcile that premise with the Government’s actions this time last week, when they left this sector, which employs millions of people and keeps our communities and high streets alive, entirely missing in action from their industrial strategy. The truth is that the Government have done nothing to support our hospitality businesses, which have been entirely let down and treated as cash cows by the Chancellor at No. 11. I think the Minister knows that, but he is a loyal man who is keen to keep his job at a time of rising unemployment, and it is probably being offered to many of his colleagues who are thinking of rebelling this afternoon. The truth is that the Government have removed incentives, laid out insurmountable burdens, and over-taxed our hospitality sector at every opportunity. It is a great regret, but I am glad that we have the chance, on behalf of the sector, to debate that this afternoon.
- Hansard source
Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, for advance sight of it and for her tone. I have always been a strong advocate for the BBC, which is a cornerstone of British public life with a proud history of cultural contribution. The events of the weekend, however, have made that incredibly difficult. During coverage of the festival, as we have heard, the artist whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster led the crowd in a chant of “death to the IDF”, a moment that, extraordinarily, was transmitted by the BBC. Let me be clear: a national broadcaster funded by licence payers must adhere to the highest standards of impartiality, responsibility, and commitment to social cohesion. I hope we can all agree that in this instance it has failed profoundly. Free speech and political activism are the sign of a healthy democracy—they are essential to it—but when someone crosses the line to incitement to violence, there must be a consequence. Broadcasting is not a passive act. Every second of broadcast transmitted is an active choice. Airing Robinson-Foster’s hateful rhetoric was not just a lapse in editorial judgment; it was a disgraceful affront to the Jewish community and a violation of the BBC’s own public charter to entertain without undermining the fundamental values of our society. As the Secretary of State said, let us be clear that hateful rhetoric should never be cloaked as artistic expression. This incident also raises fundamental questions about the BBC’s institutional culture. This is a broadcaster that has time and again given airtime to representatives and supporters of Hamas, while refusing to clearly identify the group as what it is: a terrorist organisation. The BBC has repeatedly failed to call out antisemitic rhetoric when it emerges under the guise of political commentary, and has faced serious allegations of minimising attacks on Jewish communities. The BBC’s decision to also broadcast material from Kneecap, a group whose members have openly called for Members of Parliament to be killed, is as indefensible as it is shocking. We have already seen the devastating consequences of political violence in this country, with the loss and tragic murder of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. For the BBC to amplify voices advocating similar violence is grossly irresponsible. Even more troubling is that a leading member of the group is currently facing a terrorism charge. That fact alone should have prompted an immediate editorial intervention. Instead, the BBC gave the group a platform on a publicly funded service. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has spoken to the director general, and I am grateful to her for coming to the House to report on that exchange; however, I would like to press her further to ensure that the gravity of this matter is fully recognised. Is she satisfied with the BBC’s explanation that it originally decided that streaming the performance was in line with its editorial guidelines, and has now decided that “we will look at our guidance around live events so we can be sure teams are clear on when it is acceptable to keep output on air.” Does she think that the BBC’s editorial guidelines were not clear enough, or that the BBC misinterpreted them in the first place, and does she think that that sort of weak response will be of cold comfort to the Jewish community? I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has spoken to the Home Secretary. I wonder whether she could also assess whether the BBC’s actions constituted a breach of section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986. Does she believe that the BBC’s current editorial oversight mechanisms are adequate, specifically across the commercial broadcasting arms like BBC Studios, and does she think that it is still right that the BBC gets to mark its own homework in the first instance before Ofcom gets involved, or is an independent inquiry what is needed? In the light of the repeated failings, will the Government commit to a full review of the BBC’s impartiality and governance standards as part of the royal charter renewal, and can she provide an update to the House on why the charter renewal framework and Green Paper have not yet been published? I thank the Secretary of State for her work so far. She will have the support of the Opposition, and I welcome her commitment to come back to the House to update us.
- Hansard source
Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils
Order. Before we proceed, I think I am right in saying that every Member present who is likely to want to intervene has done so; well done. I would not wish hon. Members to believe that ordinarily they are likely to get away with the length of interventions that they have got away with tonight. I understand that this is an important issue, and that there are constituency matters that need to be raised and placed on the record, but do not take the lenience of the Chair for granted. Members should bear in mind, as one hon. Lady has not, that if they intervene, they are expected to stay till the end of the debate to hear the Minister’s response.
- Hansard source
UK Military Bases: Security
Almost by definition, RAF sites have to have very long perimeter fences, so it is understandable that they could be overcome at one point or another. Why were they apparently not fitted with sensors, at least, so that any intrusion would have sounded the alarm?
- Hansard source
Welfare Reform
Does the Secretary of State agree that, while necessary at the time of covid, the removal of the requirement for face-to-face assessments was an opening of the door to potential abuse? If so, will she commit in principle to the reinstatement of face-to-face assessments?
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I have come to this debate without any prior knowledge of what is proposed, so I am making this point as a result of what I have heard so far. Am I right in thinking that what the Minister particularly has in mind is people with dual citizenship who might, for example, have gone abroad to fight for a terrorist organisation, such as ISIS. There would, in such a case, be nothing forbidding us from removing their British citizenship. If they came back, even if they could be convicted of anything at all, they would be imprisoned for only a relatively short time, if at all, and then the security services would probably have to spend many years monitoring them. Is that the sort of scenario the Minister has in mind?
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend’s argument, but surely the effect of this change will kick in only if, in the end, the Government’s appeal succeeds. Therefore, it will be the case that the court previously was wrong; otherwise, the Government’s appeal against its decision will not succeed.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
I grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. As I said in my first intervention, I am new to this whole debate, but I thought I heard from the Minister that the idea was for this measure to stand only until the Government appeal was resolved or the Government ran out of time to appeal. How long would that period be? I do not see how that would put things off for the inordinate amount of time that my right hon. Friend suggests.
- Hansard source
Defence Spending: Cross-party Talks
There are Members on the Government Front Bench who know a thing or two about leadership—I can say that with confidence, because the Prime Minister is not in that place. The Government have a commanding majority and do not need the support of Members from any other Benches to hit 3% of GDP, and further, if only the leadership of the Labour party could get its own Members of Parliament through the Division Lobby. Given that the Prime Minister shows no ability to do that with the changes to welfare, how will he ensure that 3% is spent on defence in a timely manner?
- Hansard source
Welfare Reform
To describe it as fair and equal to treat people with identical conditions differently purely on the basis of whether they are an existing recipient of benefits is Orwellian newspeak on stilts, isn’t it?
- Hansard source
Supporting Veterans
There are 3,566 veterans in my constituency, of which 28% are disabled. Many are concerned about the future support available to them. Can the Minister assure disabled veterans, not just in South Northamptonshire but across the country, what the Department will do, and that it will not forget them?
- Hansard source
Driven Grouse Shooting
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the more than 104,000 signatories to the petition. Let me be absolutely clear with the many petitioners and other interested parties watching this debate: it is not my view that grouse shooting should be banned. I hope that over the course of my remarks it will become clear why that is my view and, indeed, the view of the Conservative party. We must begin by recognising that grouse moorland is not a natural habitat. Just as the charm of the British countryside is managed by farmers, grouse moorland is managed by gamekeepers, farmers, estates and shooting syndicates that use it. If grouse shooting were banned, the moorland would not be as it is today. I worked as a rural practice surveyor before entering this place, and I advised and was involved in many moorland restoration projects—as well as spending many a Saturday when I was a young lad beating on grouse moors to earn a small wage—so I know the economic, social, environmental and ecological importance of grouse shooting to our uplands. Banning grouse shooting would have significant ramifications. Across the UK, 1.8 million hectares of moorland are specifically used for grouse shooting, and they account for about 75% of the world’s supply of this remarkable habitat. Moorland is, in effect, unique to these islands, and we should be proud and protective of it. Red grouse, the species most commonly used in shooting, is also unique to these islands. It is worth pausing to note that grouse shooting does not involve the specific rearing and release of birds. Grouse shoots use wild populations of birds that are carefully managed to create the numbers needed to prevent endangerment. The fact that grouse management straddles the line between true animal husbandry and wild hunting is precisely why the industry has such ecological and environmental benefits. The activity drives economic incentives to invest in the upkeep of grouse populations, manage their habitat for other species and provide significant environmental benefits. Just as the careful management of heather benefits grouse, so it benefits other species, such as lapwing, curlew, golden plover and the rare merlin, as many hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out. Such protected species rely on good, healthy heather for food and shelter, and without proper management, their numbers would decline. Much of our moorland is also peatland, and grouse moor management schemes have restored approximately 27,000 hectares of bare peat in the past 20 years. Colleagues may know that I have been a big champion of peatland to store and sequester carbon, so efforts to restore it are very welcome. Peat in the UK stores 26 times as much carbon as UK forests, yet it regenerates naturally by only 1 mm a year in depth, making its protection and proper management vital to reducing carbon emissions. Through its management of grouse moors, grouse shooting can only contribute towards the success of that, including its economic benefits. It is right that I pause here to discuss the burning of heather, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and other Members. The concerns of proponents of a ban on burning may be understandable, but they fail to consider the full picture and, dare I say it, are sometimes completely ill-informed. Their surface-level analysis ignores the fact that moorland is a managed landscape and must continue to be managed if we want it to remain in the enhanced habitat state that we see it in today.
- Hansard source
Driven Grouse Shooting
Clearly, the reason why our moorlands are in the state they are in today is the collective management that is taking place, whether by mechanical means or through the moorland management burning plans that exist. If we were to end the burning of heather altogether, we would allow the woody stock to generate that has led to the very fires that were rightly referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald). Right now, gamekeepers are the people on the ground trying to cope with those fires and help our fire services out. No burning would mean a build-up of vegetation and woody stock, which is itself a negative influence on the sustainability of heather for bird species of all kinds, but what is perhaps worse is that eventually, in the natural cycle, such overgrown heather is much more prone to catching fire. When it does, it will lead to huge and far more damaging wildfires, which are costly to communities and hugely damaging to the environment. I have seen this for myself in my West Yorkshire constituency on Ilkley moor—another moor that is not managed, exactly the same as Fylingdales moor in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. A series of smaller and cooler man-made fires, agreed and signed off via an approved moorland management burning plan, is vital for enhancing the ecological status of moorland, helps to improve the complex and desirable mosaic of the moorland, and significantly reduces the risk of dangerous unplanned fires. Once we understand that burning is the management of a natural process, and not destruction for destruction’s sake, it is far harder to justify banning it.
- Hansard source
Driven Grouse Shooting
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I was just going to come to that. Natural England is engaged in that consultation right now. It is not just me who is concerned about the consultation process and the direction that Natural England is going in; the concern is shared by my hon. Friend and by Members across the House who have moorland in their constituencies where it is necessary to be able to burn in order to control the woody stock of heather, so that we can create a mosaic that benefits not just the peatland that sits below it but the many species that want to eat the new shoots of heather that come through. That would benefit not only red grouse but the many other bird species I have already spoken about. Therefore, I urge the Government and the Minister to look carefully at the steps that Natural England is taking, because its current direction is not sustainable for our rural economies. The benefits of grouse shooting are not limited to environmental improvements. Grouse shooting and the management of our moorland provide an invaluable and highly successful land use for our upland areas that, crucially, relies on not just public money, but private investment. Directly within the industry, 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs are supported, contributing nearly £47 million to the UK economy. Those numbers may seem small compared with other industries, but the importance of grouse shooting is where that economic stimulus is felt. Upland rural communities are some of the most remote and deprived in the country. It is a huge challenge to promote inward investment or deliver efficient and effective public services in those communities. Alongside activities like farming, grouse shooting provides a vital economic pillar to keep our communities alive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), like other Members, picked up on that very point. He rightly identified the complex social fabric in the hard-working communities up in Wensleydale, Hawes and beyond. Upland communities are some of the most remote. Banning grouse shooting would cause community centres such as pubs and hotels—like the Star near Thirsk, which I am familiar with—to shut, and those communities would be unable to rely on the positive benefits for employment, for families and for the viability of public services. The benefits of grouse shooting extend well into our urban areas, as rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who talked about Holland & Holland. That demonstrates the wider economic impacts of grouse shooting. We know how important access to green spaces is, and the public obviously agree: 3 million people visit the North York moors, the Yorkshire dales and the Peak district annually. Why? Because they love the landscape. The wider public health benefits of how grouse moors are managed are there for us all to see. Research shows that the perennial leaf coverage of heather helps to reduce air pollution, but that coverage is sustained only by the moorland being predominantly funded and managed for the purpose of grouse shooting. Managed grouse moorland also provides a defence against tick-borne diseases. The management of ticks is in the interest of our groundkeepers and of our farmers, as it protects their livestock, but another benefit is fewer ticks to spread human-borne diseases, some of which can be fatal. If we take away the economic incentives to carry out that work by banning grouse shooting, we lose those additional benefits. I have covered many of the positive consequences of grouse shooting, but I would like to talk about the petition itself. Campaigners for banning grouse shooting have raised flooding as a concern, yet many of the organisations I have spoken to that advocate for shooting to continue say that the exact opposite is true. In the words that I have heard continuously, the wetter, the better. Indeed, many groundkeepers have spent the better part of the last few decades filling in and removing drains put in in the 1960s and 1970s, specifically to improve the outcomes for grouse shooting and to the benefit of flood mitigation downstream. I have seen that for myself on Keighley moor in my constituency. Without grouse shooting, those ditches and drains would still be in place today. Another concern that has been raised, not just in this debate but in others that have preceded it, is predator control. We must strike a balance here. Many predatory species, such as foxes, are not endangered, yet many of their prey animals are. While grouse themselves are not endangered, other bird species that benefit from this predator control are. Where the control of predators has been relaxed, numbers of other bird species, such as the lapwing, golden plover and rare merlin, have dropped significantly. We must make a choice about what we wish to prioritise: an unendangered predator species or the endangered prey themselves. Taking no action is not a neutral action. It is heartening to hear that, thanks in part to moorland managed for grouse shooting, hen harrier numbers reached record levels in 2023, demonstrating the positive effect that moorland management can have on our bird of prey species. We should also be absolutely clear that the harming of birds of prey is a crime, and I have yet to meet a grouse shooting organisation that believes that should change. Once again, the rising populations of our birds of prey demonstrate that grouse shooting works for our environment and not against it. I am pleased that the Government’s written response to the petition was that there are no plans at present to ban grouse shooting, so I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that this remains the case and, further, that no Labour Government will ban grouse shooting. I would also be grateful if the Minister could say what he will do with his ministerial colleagues to hold Natural England to account, to make sure that it does not run away with the narrative of wanting to reduce the definition of deep peat from 40 cm to 30 cm, as that would have catastrophic consequences for how moorland is managed. Grouse moorland management is a real success story of balancing economic, social and environmental activities. Those who wish to ban it because they feel that an unmanaged, natural approach would be better should be careful what they wish for. Without the financial incentive of the shoot, none of these environmental benefits for our moorland, our bird species or our climate would happen. I am certain that they would not happen without an agenda driven by private investment. I thank all those in the sector who work enormously hard around the clock to enhance our moorland—our gamekeepers, our groundskeepers, our farmers, our rural estates, our land managers and our stakeholders such as the Moorland Association, BASC, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Countryside Alliance. I thank them for their continued work. We all know that almost every acre of the UK is managed in one way or another, and has been for hundreds if not thousands of years. There is no Siberian tundra in the UK, no Australian outback, no Amazon rainforest or American wild west. We should not pretend that the land we love is the product of a random choice of nature, but instead we should recognise that it is a collective accomplishment of generation after generation of our ancestors and their stewardship of the land. Britain’s natural landscape is, ironically, a product of unnatural human management. Grouse moorland management might only be a part of that wider story, but it is an illustrative and successful one that I hope will continue long into the future.
- Hansard source
Driven Grouse Shooting
It is a great pleasure to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). I last spoke on this subject in this very place back in 2016. A lot has changed in the last nine years—notably, 10 Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, seven Chancellors and, indeed, five Prime Ministers—but one thing that has not changed is my view on grouse shooting. For full disclosure, I should say that I have never shot grouse, pheasant or any other type of bird. That is not a request for invitations, but the fact that I do not shoot grouse has not changed my absolute commitment to grouse shooting. Why? Because grouse shooting is fundamental to hard-working people in constituencies such as mine. It is a part of our local social fabric, and it is one of the world’s great conservation success stories. Advocates of a ban often think that the only people who will suffer are rich men in plus fours with port-faced complexions, but as I said back in 2016, nothing could be further from the truth. The real victims of any ban would not be caricatures, but ordinary working people: the farmer’s wife who goes beating at the weekend so that her family can make ends meet; the young man able to earn a living, in the community that he loves, as an apprentice to a gamekeeper; or the local publican welcoming shooting parties with cold ales and warm pies. Let us be absolutely clear that those who support a ban on grouse shooting should only do so if they are prepared to look those people in the eye and explain to them why their livelihoods are worth sacrificing. Some question shooting’s contribution to the rural economy. As we heard, the petition itself uses the words “economically insignificant”, but there is nothing economically insignificant about 2,500 direct jobs and tens of millions of pounds paid out in wages. If anything, those numbers are an underestimate. From the Yorkshire B&B welcoming ramblers drawn to our area by the moors’ summer blossom, to the workshops of Westley Richards in Birmingham or Purdey in London, whose handmade shotguns are the finest in the world, the ripples of employment that grouse shooting creates reach every corner of our country. Grouse shooting makes an invaluable contribution not only to the rural economy, but to our rural landscape. A tendency among some conservationists is to act as though farmers and gamekeepers are somehow trespassing on Britain’s landscape, but without their hands repairing our dry stone walls or their dairy cows keeping the fields lush, the rural beauty of our countryside would soon fade. Heather moorland, as we heard, is rarer than rainforest, and 75% of it is found right here in Britain. It is a national treasure. From Heathcliff to Holmes, the moors have become a proud part of our cultural heritage, and no one has set out a viable, privately funded alternative vision for those uplands. Without the million pounds of private income spent by moor owners on land management every single week, that proud heritage would come to an end. Overgrazed by sheep, used to grow pine timber, or abandoned to bracken, the moors as we know and love them would be lost. That would be a disaster for British wildlife. Academic study after academic study shows that endangered wading birds such as curlew and lapwing are much more likely to breed successfully on managed grouse moors. The vast majority of rare merlin, the UK’s smallest bird of prey, are found on grouse moors. A recent study by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in Northumberland reveals the devastating ecological impact on plover, snipe, lapwing and curlew populations of the withdrawal of predator control carried out by moor owners. There has been some discussion about the state of the hen harrier population, and although numbers reached a record high in 2023, more can and must be done, but we must be clear: a Britain without grouse shooting is not a Britain where the hen harrier would thrive. Research carried out on the Scottish grouse moor of Langholm and published in the Journal of Applied Ecology found that when gamekeeping ceased, the hen harrier population plummeted. Without gamekeepers to control the predators, they multiply and hen harriers pay the price. That is why the participation of 1 million acres of grouse moor in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs hen harrier brood management scheme is the right approach, and why gamekeepers supporting diversionary feeding is the right approach. Conservation will succeed only through partnership with the grouse-shooting industry and not through its destruction.
- Hansard source
Driven Grouse Shooting
As I said, conservation will succeed only if it is done in partnership with the grouse-shooting industry. Let me be clear: I have zero tolerance for raptor persecution. It is rightly condemned by all shooting organisations and is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a crime. Those suspected of illegal activities should face the full consequences of their actions. There is absolutely no place for them in this sector. I turn next to the petition’s comments on the environment. The tightly controlled rotational burning used to manage heather moorland may seem odd to some, but without it, our moors would not regenerate as well or support the rich wildlife and biodiversity that they do; the risk of wildfires would also increase. I have found no clear scientific consensus to support a blanket ban. In addition, contrary to some claims, there is no specific evidence that links burning to flooding. Far from seeking to create drier moors, managers appreciate that wetter is better, and have blocked thousands of grips in order to ensure that peat on their landscapes is rewetted. As for the myth that grouse shooting is somehow unregulated, I would be amused to hear what the gamekeepers in my constituency think of that. There are scores of regulations, codes and licences, and even Acts of Parliament, to comply with, covering every aspect of the sector, including the possession and use of firearms, the use of lead ammunition, the length of the season, the methods of predator control, heather burning, the use of medicated grit, and the protection of wild birds. Banning grouse shooting would undermine the balanced ecosystem of our countryside. It would leave not only many families but our landscape and wildlife poorer. A ban on grouse shooting would be a policy with no winners. It would be a case of a small section of urban Britain imposing its views on rural Britain, and that is not right. The failure to appreciate other people’s views and interests will not bring our country together. I urge the Government to stand firm and reject these ill thought-through calls for a ban. Instead, we should all work together to build on this quintessentially British success story.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Last week, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what happened to the £4 billion earmarked for autonomous systems, including in Plymouth. That line was in the Chancellor’s spending review speech, but not delivered on the day. The Chief Secretary did not know. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this funding exists, and will he accept an invitation to Turnchapel Wharf, where exciting marine autonomy is being developed?
- Hansard source
Welfare Reform
I am sure that the Chancellor will be delighted that the flip-flopping of the Prime Minister means she has to find another £2.5 billion in taxation on people in this country. Does the Secretary of State think that it is fair that a two-tier system has been created? Why would anybody on the old rate seek work when they know that if they go into work, it does not work out and they claim again, they will get a reduced rate under her Government?
- Hansard source
Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this sweltering evening, Mr Swayne.
- Hansard source
Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025
Sir Desmond—I apologise; I will announce my resignation later this evening. I am pleased to respond to the draft regulations for the Opposition. Under this legislation, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will be given new powers to view anonymised CfD bids before setting the budget for the next auction of contracts, due to take place later this year. That means that he will know ahead of time exactly how much will be procured if he sets the budget at a certain level, and therefore what the strike price will be. That poses questions about exactly how much the next round of CfD contracts—AR7—will end up costing the taxpayer. Already, the process has been delayed. The previous allocation round was a record-breaking £1.5 billion, after the Secretary of State turned on the money machine. Everyone in industry—and, I suspect, Ministers too—believes that AR7 will be even more expensive. Ministers have made clear their intention to extend the CfD contracts to 20 years in an attempt to get strike prices down. Whether they succeed or fail in that respect, let us be clear about what it all means in the end: more expensive bills for the public—the very opposite of what the party promised before the election. I note that the Minister, in her opening speech, talked again about the volatility of gas prices and repeated the soundbite about the rollercoaster of gas prices. I would appreciate it if, in her response to me, she explained why the Labour party has taken credit in its campaign materials for the reduction in bills caused by the fall in wholesale gas prices, when policy costs have actually increased. Why are Ministers having to pump so much more money into CfD contracts? It is because of the Government’s ideological rush to decarbonise the grid within five years. That requires a massive expansion in wind power over the next two auctions, and the result will be higher prices forced on to households and businesses. We know that not just from experience and an understanding of how renewable technologies work, but because it has come from the horse’s mouth, too. Behind closed doors, a senior RWE executive has admitted that there would be “spikes in prices” and predicted that the “consumer risks losing out”. In other words, bills are going up. It would be nice if we could have such honesty from the Government. This is the reality of net zero. Last January, a combination of dark skies and low wind—what has now become known as Dunkelflaute—brought Britain to the brink of blackouts. That was avoided only thanks to our remaining gas fleets, which the Government say they want to run down. The Prime Minister has promised categorically that decarbonising the grid by 2030 will not cause any power shortages, blackouts or energy rationing, yet unreliable solar contributed to a lack of inertia in the Iberian grid that could have prevented their power outages. In Britain, customers have paid over half a billion pounds already this year for power generated by wind, with which the grid cannot cope. The OBR says that the costs of all these subsidies, and the hidden costs of renewables, will rise by 60% over the course of this Parliament. Wind is more expensive and highly unreliable, but the Government want more of it, instead of more reliable energy sources, such as gas and nuclear. I hope the Minister can take this opportunity today to explain in clear terms what this legislation will mean for the future of our energy system. Can she provide a date for when the allocation round 7 administrative strike prices will be published? Can she confirm that the budget will be kept as low as possible to keep strike prices as low as possible? How will Ministers ensure value for money when they are trying to procure record capacity? Can the Minister tell us now that strike prices for offshore wind will be lower than those in AR6, and can she confirm that strike prices will be lower than the price of gas-powered electricity last year? If she cannot answer those questions, how can she possibly say that this legislation will cut bills? The public deserve the truth about how the Government are using their money to chase the ideological and the unachievable. Pushing policy to run faster than technology will allow, which is exactly what this Government are doing, will only lead us further away from genuine energy abundance, and leave our country not only poorer but less secure.
- Hansard source
Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025
One of the questions I asked was, why, given that the Minister and other Ministers keep talking about the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuel prices, when wholesale costs fell, causing the price cap to fall, did the Labour party put out posters saying, “£129 off your bills delivered by Labour”? Will the Minister confirm that that reduction reflects the reduction in wholesale prices and has nothing to do with what the Government have done with policy?
- Hansard source
Welfare Reform
Is the problem for the Government not the failure of the Prime Minister to even seek a mandate for what he is trying to do? He said that he would limit spending increases to £9.5 billion a year, but he has increased spending by eight times as much, and the effect on the fiscal rules is the root cause of this problem. He also won the Labour leadership by promising to “abolish Universal Credit and end the Tories’ cruel sanctions regime”, but then he masqueraded as a welfare reformer. Does the Secretary of State now realise that to win a mandate, one needs to be straight with people, including one’s own MPs?
- Hansard source
Operation Banner: Legal Protection for Veterans
According to the 2021 census, there are more than 2 million veterans living in Great Britain. Clearly, some of them have been busy lately: their parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, with support from the Daily Mail, the Express and others, now has more than 160,000 signatures and will be debated in Parliament on 14 July. Which Minister will respond to that debate, so that we can ask them why the Government’s current remedial order is drafted to help the likes of Gerry Adams sue the British taxpayer while throwing our veterans to the wolves?
- Hansard source
Operation Banner: Legal Protection for Veterans
The Government could have appealed to the Supreme Court on this but deliberately did not. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s personal sincerity. However, at Prime Minister’s questions on 15 January, the Prime Minister promised veterans: “We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages—it is important that I say that on the record.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 324.] Why then, despite the PM’s solemn promise, is the order still unchanged? Surely he is not expecting to order his own MPs, many of whom represent red wall seats from which those veterans were originally recruited, through the Aye Lobby just to do Gerry Adams a favour? He is not going to do that, is he?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of welcoming the Secretary of State to my home town of Cleethorpes, where we witnessed the national Armed Forces Day event. Earlier, he referred to the volunteers who made this possible. My constituent Alex Baxter, whom he met on Saturday, has masterminded the Armed Forces Day event in Cleethorpes for many years. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Alex and his team on a splendid event?
- Hansard source
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery
I thank the Minister for his statement and for the briefing he gave me earlier today. It is disturbing that when the Government reached out to the company for additional information, it was not forthcoming. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) asked some pertinent questions, one of which was how long the Government are prepared to support the workers and the refinery. It would be reassuring for many of my constituents who work there if the Minister could give some indication that there will be support at least in the medium term.
- Hansard source
Defence Sector Exports
Ametek, a defence manufacturer in my constituency, has reported to me that the process of getting a defence export licence has almost ground to a halt in the past 12 months. Could the Ministry of Defence send someone sufficiently threatening round to the Department for Business and Trade—perhaps the Veterans Minister—to persuade it to get a grip of its processes and speed everything up?
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
The Minister keeps referring to a “loophole”. In fact, it has been an important principle of British justice that successful appeal equals vindication. This Bill is trying to remove that presumption. That is not a loophole; it is a basic judicial right on which we all rely.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
The Minister keeps referring to a loophole in justice. I do not understand why he cannot see that “innocent until proven guilty” should apply in these cases, as in any other. The idea that my winning an appeal would not automatically mean I was innocent, as it does in every other case, seems a breach of a fundamental tenet. He is also not correct to say that the power is used sparingly. Since 2010, dozens of people have been denied citizenship on the say-so of the Home Secretary, despite there being nothing proven in court. That is what is different about these cases. This is effectively something that is done in secret, behind closed doors, without the facts necessarily being proven in any way. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but this is a case in which we should be even more reliant on due process, rather than trying to legislate judges out of the room, as we are trying to today.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
As I hope the Minister knows, I have devoted much of my adult life to keeping individuals, neighbourhoods, towns, cities and indeed the entire country safe, but I have to confess that I have never been entirely comfortable with the deprivation of citizenship regime. Unfortunately, his Bill, which he is trying to pass off as an innocuous correction, has sparked that sense of unease. The reason I am uneasy is that, although the objectives that the Minister proposes are laudable, I believe that the cost to our sense of self and the corrosiveness to our sense of citizenship and to the judicial process are perhaps too high. I will not detain the House for too long, but I want to raise three points. We have covered them to a certain extent, but they are worth reiterating. First, the Minister’s sense is that the Supreme Court has created a loophole; my view is that it has corrected an anomaly. It has long been a tenet of the protections with which the judicial process provides me as an individual that an appeal equals vindication and that it is for my accuser to appeal, on the basis that I remain innocent, even prior to the first action that is taken against me. This regime will reverse that. The second alarming point is that the legislation is retrospective. As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) asked, there may be a number of cases going through the courts for which this law will have a highly prejudicial impact. The Government are effectively moving the goalposts mid-litigation to get what they want. That, again, is not something we would normally tolerate, and it is a further development of the power.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
The Minister is quite right—not that I ever exercised those powers. But as I said, in my view the Supreme Court has corrected an anomaly that the previous Government took advantage of. Yes, absolutely, hands up, they did—I am not saying that is correct. He is proposing that in the face of a Supreme Court decision that he does not like, he will change the law to say that the court was in effect wrong and that the fundamental right on which the Supreme Court has decided—we should not forget that the courts basically decide our rights within the legal framework—is somehow not to be tolerated.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. However, it does mean that the state can render someone stateless by inaction, because it can take many years for cases to work their way through the courts. It is also, as I said, highly prejudicial, because it means that for the duration of the legal action that person will not be able to come to the UK and therefore will have to litigate from outside our borders.
- Hansard source
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, there are various layers of appeal that can be taken, right up to the Supreme Court. The Bill says that, throughout that period, as long as the Government continue to pursue appeals, the person remains deprived of their citizenship, rather than what the Supreme Court is saying, which is that if the person wins any one of those appeals, they immediately become in effect innocent, and their citizenship is restored as if it was never removed in the first place. That is in the same way as if, were I accused of a crime and found innocent and the prosecutor decided to appeal my conviction, I would remain innocent until that appeal was heard and decided against me. If it were appealed beyond that, I would remain innocent then still. The Government are attempting to revert to the erroneous situation as determined by the Supreme Court. In my view, they are moving the goalposts on an individual who frankly seems to have won a case fair and square in our highest court in the land. Finally, I want to raise a more fundamental issue about this entire process. Call me an old romantic, but my view is that once you are a citizen, you are a citizen. Once you are in, you are in. Unfortunately, the development of this power over the last however many years since the 1981 Act, which brought it in, has created two classes of citizens in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who spoke for the Opposition—she is no longer in her place—said, “citizenship is a privilege, not an unconditional right.” That is not true. It is an unconditional right for me as a freeborn Englishman of two English parents going back I do not know how many years. I have no claim on citizenship anywhere else. It is my absolute, undeniable, unequivocal right to have citizenship in this country, and it cannot be removed from me by any means whatsoever. That is not true of my children. I am married to a Canadian citizen, so they have a claim on Canadian citizenship. If the Home Secretary so decides, they could have their citizenship removed. That is also true of every Jewish citizen of the United Kingdom, who has a right to citizenship in Israel. There will be millions of British people of south Asian origin who feel that they have a second-class citizenship. This law applies only to certain of our citizens. It does not apply to me. I do not know whether it applies to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it is making other hon. Members think about whether it applies to them. While the Minister has been clear that we should trust him and has given us lots of undertakings, we do not make the law on the basis of a Minister we like, trust and respect; we make it on the basis that the law might fall into the hands of somebody we are not that keen on and who may be more cavalier with the powers bestowed upon them. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, said, we are a country that uses this power disproportionately more than any other western country. We have been free in our use of it, despite the fact that Minister after Minister has stood in the House and said, “We use it sparingly.” We do not. Dozens and dozens of people have been excluded, and we have to be honest about why. Sometimes it has been for safety, but sometimes, on balance, it has been to please the papers—because it looks good and plays well. We never ask ourselves about the cost of that to our sense of cohesion. The hon. Member for Makerfield gave a lyrical and poetic view of citizenship, but if a large proportion of our fellow citizens believe that they have a second class of that citizenship—if some can say, “I am undeniably and unchallengeably a citizen, but you are not, so watch yourself”—what does that do to society?