Disadvantaged Communities
Order. I call David Chadwick.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Disadvantaged Communities
Order. I notice that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) is standing. Under the rules, I am afraid we are not allowed to call Members who were not here at the start of the debate. That is not a criticism; I fully understand that Members quite frequently have good reason for coming in late. Now the hon. Member has been here for long enough, I am more than prepared to allow him to intervene on another Member, should he choose to do so.
- Hansard source
Disadvantaged Communities
Congratulations. As a result of everyone’s self-discipline, we have accommodated 19 Members and an additional eight interventions. That must be something of a record. It also means that the Front Benchers now have adequate time to respond properly to the debate. Well done.
- Hansard source
Disadvantaged Communities
Order. No.
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
I concur entirely with the views expressed by the two Privy Counsellors on the Conservative Back Benches who have already spoken, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). For weeks we have been listening to fine words from Government Front Benchers, and we have seen a lot of handwringing and a vast amount of inactivity. The question that everybody in this Chamber is asking of the Minister is “When?” Yesterday, as he knows, four of us tried to deliver a letter to Downing Street calling for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. We were not even allowed to deliver that letter. The time has come to act now. There is a route from Larnaca in Cyprus straight into Gaza—use it! Let us save these children.
- Hansard source
Regional Growth
I know that the Minister is drawing his parameters rather tightly today, but can he give us at least a hint of what impact the Treasury’s consideration anticipates for the defence investments in the regions resulting from the recent strategic defence review, given the closeness with which his Department was involved in the formulation of that review?
- Hansard source
Swimming Facilities
Before my hon. Friend comes on to those challenges—and I am mindful of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—can he tell us whether he is as disturbed as I am by the increasing number of tragic events in which people drown as a result of not being able to swim? There were more deaths in the last four years than there were previously, and most of those deaths were among young people. Learning to swim is more than recreation; it is something vital. I am delighted that a Conservative Member has secured this debate, but Members across this Chamber are of one mind on this matter.
- Hansard source
Swimming Facilities
A report last year by the Royal Life Saving Society found that the number of child drownings in England had doubled over a four-year period. That was 125 lives lost. Two years ago, The Guardian reported that England had lost almost 400 swimming pools since 2010, including local authority and community-owned pools, privately owned leisure facilities, school and sports club pools, and the Deepings leisure centre, which previously hosted the renowned Deepings swimming club. My question to the Minister is straightforward. How can I obtain funding, in tune with the previous Government’s swimming pool support fund, to help that much-loved community facility to reopen, and so make swimming available to children and adults in the community?
- Hansard source
Swimming Facilities
In order to help the Minister, because I know she does not have much time, would she agree to meet me offline to discuss that? It would be much easier if I could meet her with a community group from the Deepings, and we can take that forward.
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
The policy of successive UK Governments has been that the United Kingdom will recognise the state of Palestine when it is conducive to the peace process and the ultimate realisation of the two-state solution. Up to this point, I have accepted the argument that the Minister and his predecessors have made that that moment has not yet come. But has not the balance shifted decisively with a succession of moves to greater territorial change in the west bank by increased settlement activity and by increasingly blunt and frequent statements from members of the Israeli Government that they are going to restrict Palestinians to a sub-set of Gaza or restrict them from Gaza all together? That is what has changed my mind such that I now believe that it is necessary for the UK, hopefully in conjunction with others, to recognise the state of Palestine urgently. Why has it not yet changed the Government’s mind?
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of changes to business rates relief on high street businesses. What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am deeply privileged to have secured this debate. When we think about the communities that we represent, we so often think about the centre of those communities—the town, village or city centres that truly define the communities that are our constituencies. That is certainly no different in my constituency. Even in some of the very small villages such as Salt or Great Chatwell, the main centre is sometimes the pub, which is the hive of community interest—I would recommend any of the pubs in my constituency to the Minister, if ever he wanted to visit them. They bring the community together. The larger towns and villages, such as Stone, Great Wyrley, Cheslyn Hay or Penkridge, have thriving high streets and centres that are vital for the people who live there. Centres give towns density and, critically, create employment for so many people in my constituency and all our constituencies. The Government’s changes to business rates relief have already had a significant impact on so many businesses, not just in my constituency but right across Staffordshire, the west midlands and England itself. The change in relief, which was 75% but has been reduced to 40%, has had a material impact on the way that people run their businesses. We are all aware that the initial rates relief was introduced at the height of the pandemic to help businesses. However, businesses, especially on our high streets, have taken time to recover from the pandemic, which saw a shift in the way that many people buy their goods, in people’s shopping habits and in the way that we use our town, city and village centres. The rates relief was vital to so many businesses, shops, pubs, hotels and people in adjusting to the new reality that they found themselves living in. In my constituency, the hospitality industry contributes £70 million in gross value added and employs just short of 3,000 people. If it was a single employer, we would be talking about it all the time, but of course it is not one employer—it is many small family businesses. They may be individuals employing two or three people. They may be limited companies, although often they will be sole traders or partnerships. They are the backbone of England and of our economy, and they are feeling the pain of the changes that the Government introduced. Many people in my constituency and across the country listened when Labour said, in opposition, that relief would be coming and that there would be changes, but they were not expecting those changes to cost them more money. Let us look at the analysis of the impact on a typical shop in terms of business rates. A typical shop has seen its bill climb from £3,589 to £8,613. For a typical restaurant, the bill has climbed from an average of £5,051 to £12,122. I appreciate that, in the Treasury’s view, those are not even rounding errors—they are not something that it should be concerned about or even think about—but for a business or an individual trying to work out how they will pay their employees’ wages, order in more stock or pay themselves a wage that month, that really matters. It impacts those who are in business and dampens the aspirations of those who wish to start one.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need reform. Such closures affect her constituent and many others, but these are not just businesses; they are someone’s hopes, dreams and aspirations to create something better and build a better life for themselves and other people. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, 125 pubs have already closed since 1 April. That is 125 communities that have lost something that they may never get back. It is 125 families—and many more, if we take into account the families of the many people working in those pubs—who have seen their livelihoods disappear. We cannot just dismiss this problem. I thank the Chamber engagement team, which, in preparation for this debate, did a number of surveys asking for the views of people from across the country about the impact of business rates on their businesses. It is interesting to hear those stories. Lorraine, who has a hospitality business, said: “It is time our industry had some real help. We had nothing left to give. I predict even more closures in the next two years.” Karen, who runs a salon and health club, said: “The rates are more than my rent and with the wage increases and massive hike in rates, I can’t survive. I’m on borrowed time.” This is about not just those people, but the many people they employ. Rachel, who has a beauty salon, said: “I used to employ 18 people and now only employ four, so it’s effectively made me shrink the business.” James, who runs a hospitality business, said: “The reduction in relief has led me to reduce my workforce by 33%.” There are business out there that last year were perhaps thinking about expanding—maybe taking on another pub or opening another shop—but that is no longer viable. Most business owners—who, like the people employed, are working people—are the last ones to get paid. They take the risk, and the Government do not seem to want to encourage them, let them grow or give them the opportunity to succeed. They just make it harder. This issue is not just about businesses; it is also about communities. Although there can be no finer high streets than the ones in my constituency—[Interruption.] Now we are getting into a real debate, but I will stand firm. However, there is nothing sadder than seeing an empty shop that was previously occupied. That is not just about the demise of a particular business; it brings down the whole high street. We see so many businesses being impacted in multiple ways. We see the impact of the changes in business rate relief; we see the impact of the changes in national insurance, and not just in terms of the rate but in terms of when it starts to get paid; and we see the cumulative impact of changes to employment law. We want businesses to take on people and to make it as easy as possible for them to take on new starters. Sadly, it is becoming harder and harder for them to do so. The reality is that young people are some of the most impacted. Almost half of those working in hospitality in my constituency are aged between 16 and 24. I appreciate that the Government may take the view that their jobs are not important ones and that they will go on to something else, but I think that it is vital that we provide opportunities for young people at the start of their careers. Hospitality and retail are vital for that, whether the jobs are full time or part time. The impact of the changes to rate relief means that fewer young people are in a position where they can get the jobs they need to get on in life.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
The hon. Member makes a very valid point. This issue is about ensuring that there is as much opportunity as possible for all people, whatever their background. We should not be dismissive of such jobs—I am sure that the Minister is not—but they are the jobs that have been squeezed out by the changes to rate relief. The Minister knows that I am one of his biggest fans; indeed, I am a great admirer of him. I see him as a rising star. While the Chancellor hides, he is wheeled out. He is truly an impressive figure at the Treasury. I am not sure whether it is due to the diminished status of the Chancellor that he is looking taller, but he is certainly one of the rising stars of the Labour Front Bench. I actually enjoy reading some of his many comments. He is a very thoughtful and accomplished Minister. I imagine that he is a joy to work with and that his civil servants value him greatly. However, I will just read out some of the things that the Minister has said in the past: “As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has set out, if Labour were in government, we would scrap and replace business rates, and shift the burden away from hospitality and retail businesses on the high street, which continue to shoulder a heavy burden compared with those that operate primarily in the digital economy.” —[Official Report, 31 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 318WH.] I do not think that there is a Member in this Chamber who would disagree with the Minister on that. I think everyone in the debate today would say, “All power to the Minister’s elbow, and we look forward to him announcing how that will be done.” Most businesses I have spoken to have found that they are paying more today than they were just a year ago. When in opposition, the Minister was busy making many comments, including: “A Labour Government will help to breathe new life into our high streets by calling time on the outdated model of business rates, so that British businesses in all parts of the country can play their part in creating economic growth and the jobs of the future.” —[Official Report, 13 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 262WH.] Sadly, at the moment, the Government are doing quite the reverse. Every small business in my constituency has been impacted by higher rates, not lower ones. There is concern about what this will look like in the future. There is nervousness that even the reduced reliefs that have been put in place will have gone altogether. I very much hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to give us every assurance that efforts are being made to deal with the impact of the change in business rates relief on businesses not just in Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, but across England. I hope he will give them some comfort that the Government do not just say things in opposition, but do them in government. We have a sorely outdated model of billing businesses. I know the Treasury loves nothing more than the rates system, because it is one of the easiest ways to collect tax, but there are concerns that, whether or not under pressure from President Trump, when it comes to changing how digital services taxes will be done, the Treasury might come for more money from small businesses, the high street and family companies. I hope the Minister can clearly set out that that will not be the case. I appreciate that he will not wish to steal the Chancellor’s sandwiches for any future statements, but I hope he can say clearly that there will be help coming for so many businesses right across the country, and that we will support those job creators.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
Will the Minister assure us that, given the cross-party agreement in the Chamber today, he will go back to the Treasury and make representations to see if that could be increased to 75% for the intervening year? It would be a great relief not just on finances but on the mental worry of so many businesses if they knew that someone in the Treasury was battling for the return of that 75% relief.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
A lot of businesses will be worried that when they get rates bills in the future, even under a reformed system, that bill will have not gone down, but actually gone up. I thank the Minister for his comments, but there is a real worry that the Treasury will end up trying to balance the books on the backs of small and family businesses. I urge the Minister to do what he can, because these businesses are the engines of our economy. They are where the jobs are created and where so many young people will get their first opportunity. I urge him to do everything he can to protect opportunities for the future and their ability to create jobs and wealth, because the people who are running these businesses are working people as well. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of changes to business rates relief on high street businesses.
- Hansard source
School Standards
5. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on school standards.
- Hansard source
School Standards
What has caused the system, which was once the benchmark for all others, to become such a disappointment?
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Studied ambiguity of what and when has had no impact on Israeli policy. We want to know, and Israel needs to know, precisely what the Government mean by “further steps”.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate. Our high street shops and pubs are at the heart of our communities, yet many are threatened by big increases in business rates. Our high street businesses are already contending with Labour’s new tax on jobs. The hike in national insurance makes it more expensive to employ someone who works in a shop or a pub on our high street. The Employment Rights Bill will further increase costs, hitting small businesses with new regulations that make it harder and more expensive to operate. In that context, the decision to cut the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40% is wrong. I met recently with Mr Paul Davis of Styles Menswear in Bridgwater. His business rates have gone up from £3,000 a year to £9,000 a year. That new cost, before we can even consider Labour’s new jobs tax, puts his livelihood at risk. He will not be alone. Paul’s business has the double misfortune of being based in Eastover, where he has had to contend with extensive and lengthy roadworks. In Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset, we have had a particular problem with various roadworks being scheduled at the same time and harming local businesses. It seems that the Liberal Democrats know little and care less about the damage that they are causing. The roadworks in Eastover started in October with a partial road closure. As if that were not bad enough, the council then decided to impose a full road closure in January, which is now set to continue until at least September. Ironically, it is on the council’s “celebration mile” project, although to date there has been very little for local businesses to celebrate. The project has proved a hammer blow to many local businesses, which have seen footfall collapse: footfall in Bridgwater is down 400,000 in the past 12 months, mostly caused by the incompetent way in which Somerset council has handled the project. I believe that those businesses deserve our support. Businesses disproportionately affected by council actions should have the right to claim rates relief. Will the Minister consider that proposal? The situation in Eastover is now desperate, and I fear that in the coming months we will see more shops and businesses closing their doors for good. It seems that this Labour Government, with the able assistance of Liberal Democrat councillors in Somerset, are set on destroying those businesses. The truth is that, despite the Government’s claim to be going for growth, everything that they are doing appears designed to achieve the opposite. I say to the Minister, “Businesses in Bridgwater are suffering. They need your help now.”
- Hansard source
Regional Growth
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for early sight of it. I will start with an area of agreement: it is a shared ambition to enable all parts of this country to participate in our growth and our future. Potential in the United Kingdom is everywhere, and it is right that the Government seek to unlock it with every means they have. Indeed, that was one of the guiding principles of the 2019-24 Conservative Administration’s levelling-up policy. They always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now, we know that this Chancellor has a reputation for copying, so I thought I would have a look at the statement made in 2023 on Network North allocations, which I am sure the Chief Secretary has seen. I thought I would compare those allocations with the Government’s announcement today. I have the Conservative announcements in one hand and the Labour announcements in the other. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout all they want. Here we go. In 2023, the Conservatives promised the west midlands £2.64 billion—[Interruption.] I say to Labour Members that the Chief Secretary is also only making a promise. In 2023, we promised £2.64 billion for the west midlands, and the Government have announced £2.4 billion for the west midlands today. We promised £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire; today, the Government have announced £2.1 billion. We promised £2.5 billion for Greater Manchester; they have announced £2.5 billion today. We promised £1.45 billion for South Yorkshire; they have announced £1.5 billion today. We promised £1.581 billion for Liverpool; they have announced £1.6 billion today. We promised £1.84 billion for the north-east; they have announced £1.8 billion today. We promised £0.752 billion for the west of England; they have announced £0.8 billion today. We promised £978 million for Tees Valley in 2023, and Labour has announced £1 billion today. I know the Chief Secretary is occasionally good with numbers, but does he not agree that what he is announcing today is essentially nothing more than a rounding error on the Conservatives’ plans from 2023? The only difference between the 2023 and 2025 announcements is that we would have spelt Rotherham correctly in our announcement. The truth is, the Chancellor will go around the country rewriting history as frequently as she writes her CV, but nobody believes in her £22 billion black hole. What people do believe is that this Chancellor is open to change. She is going to roll back the issues on the winter fuel allowance, her botched welfare reform and changes to the two-child policy. Look at those on the Treasury Bench—they have not got a spine. If Labour Back Benchers have an issue in their constituency and want to stand up for their constituents, they should make a bid to this Chief Secretary, because he will back down and give them the money. That is what we know from Labour. We also know that in the Government’s analysis of the Green Book, they are looking to change the assessments of the cost-benefit analysis. My question to the Chief Secretary therefore is—[Interruption.] I do have a number of questions. First, will he publish the cost-benefit ratios for each of the projects he has announced today? Will he state whether they have been evaluated on the existing Green Book rules or on new rules? Will he give an indication today of what those rules might be? Secondly, as the Labour Government try to decide whether their commitment on defence is for 2%, 2.5%, 3% or 3.5% of GDP, with both those numbers and today’s investments stretching into the next period of government—whoever is in government—can the Chief Secretary confirm that it is this Government’s intention that the investments made today will be secure, whatever the changes made on defence expenditure? The Chief Secretary said that he is able to make this announcement because the Government changed the rules, which has enabled £113 billion more of investment. But that is not quite right, is it? The Government can afford the additional investment only if people are prepared to fund it, and there are two sources for funding: taxpayers or the bond market. Can the Chief Secretary therefore advise whether he is going to look for additional funding from taxes or additional borrowing, if there is a shortfall? The truth is, despite what the Back Benchers say, this Labour Treasury team are out of their depth. They are addicted to tax increases and to more borrowing. The Chief Secretary can republish as many press releases as he likes, but we know that because of their reckless mismanagement of the economy, come the autumn, this Labour Government will be back for more.
- Hansard source
Swimming Facilities
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is spelling out the challenges that local councils face. Does he agree that we have a particularly big challenge coming down the road—albeit one that is already in front of us—in new towns? In Sherford in my constituency, a swimming pool and a leisure facility were part of the plans. People have bought into living in those new towns based on that promise, but given the lack of funding and the increased costs of running leisure facilities, there is a battle over who will deliver them. This means the facilities are kicked into the long grass, and residents like my constituents are left waiting and hoping for the facility to come. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that, as they pursue their housing plans, they are minded to fund leisure facilities so that new towns have them as required?
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The scenes emanating from Gaza are harrowing and the suffering is intolerable. The current situation that we are all witnessing simply cannot continue. The level of humanitarian suffering and desperation continues to be unacceptable, as children, women and their families continue to suffer while desperately trying to secure food and humanitarian aid. The deaths and casualties near aid distribution centres should never have happened. Will the Minister inform the House what discussions have taken place with Israel about those appalling events, the status of any investigations and what action will follow? Britain must use its influences at every level and bring all allies together. We want peace and stability in the region, including in neighbouring countries, as the current conflict is hurting civilians and a sustainable end to the conflict appears to have moved even further away. Are we working with our Abraham accords partners and regional allies who also want peace, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Britain must leverage its considerable influence in the region to help stop the endless suffering that we are seeing, to get more aid in, to see the hostages released and to end the terminal situation with Hamas to achieve a proper, sustainable end to the conflict and, importantly, work towards a better future for the Palestinian and Israeli people. To that end, will the Minister explain how the Government plan to use the upcoming summit in New York to further those ends? On humanitarian aid, the Government say that they continue to call for broader aid access. Of course, we support that, but are there practical and specific proposals for the opening of individual crossings and entry points? Have those been presented directly to the Government of Israel? The Minister will know that my noble friend Lord Cameron, working with our allies, previously secured commitments from the Government of Israel to open up the Erez crossing and the port of Ashdod to get aid into Gaza. He will also know that at that time Israel agreed to extend the opening hours of the Kerem Shalom crossing point, and we were able to achieve commitments to increase the number of trucks entering Gaza, which naturally led to an increase in vital aid supplies, including food and medical aid, for innocent Palestinians. On British aid sitting in the region, the Minister has said in a written answer to me on Monday: “Quantifying how much is awaiting entry into Gaza is difficult, due to the complex operating environment and limited real-time data.” We appreciate that, but what more can he do to secure practical information about where UK aid is located, who we can work with to move aid to key locations and what more Britain can do to ensure that UK aid gets to those who are desperately in need of our support? We know that multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and others, are working on serious plans to deal with immediate, as well as long-term, issues to support the recovery and reconstruction of the economy in Gaza and the west bank. What are the Government doing to support that work and what engagement has the Minister had with those organisations? Some 58 remaining hostages have now been in cruel captivity for 607 days at the hands of Hamas. They must be released. We are aware of initiatives put forward by the United States and that the latest proposals have been rejected by Hamas. What pressure are the Government exerting on Hamas to get them to reverse their opposition to those plans? On the west bank, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority on 28 April, which we debated in the House. Will the Minister update the House on the PA’s progress since that signing on reform and governance, because credible governance is required for long-term stability? On settlements, the Conservative position is as it was in government and is well understood. Settlements are not helpful for achieving long-term peace and we urge Israel for its part not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. We support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and Palestinian people. Finally, we all want to lift people’s lives to a better future, for the Israeli and Palestinian people. To do so, Britain must actively bring our long-standing perspective and influence to bear in the region, with all our allies.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing the debate. I agree with nearly everything he said, with one notable exception: the constituency with the finest high streets is, of course, Bromley and Biggin Hill. High streets matter. They are the economic heart of our cities, towns and villages, supporting local jobs and serving as a social hub for communities, as my right hon. Friend said. When they are in decline or struggling, communities feel it: not only are there fewer jobs and less cohesion locally, but there is a deep sense of loss. Shuttered shops and empty streets shatter civic pride. While too many communities have seen their local high streets decline, we avoided mass closure during the pandemic, thanks to generous public support. Retail, hospitality and leisure relief, under which firms were initially offered 100% relief on business rates with a cap of up to £110,000, was one such pivotal measure. It was a lifeline for many businesses, and it remained a lifeline through the energy crisis and the subsequent inflation. Although it was intended as a temporary measure, that tax break remains crucial to the recovery of high streets and to local growth. It is not yet time to rapidly reduce it. That is why the Government’s decision to reduce the relief from 75% to 40% is a huge blow. The change effectively doubles the business rates bill for retail, hospitality and leisure firms, and it comes on top of the high energy costs and above-target inflation that are squeezing businesses. In my constituency we are fortunate to have successful high streets, from Bromley town centre, which is home to more than 700 businesses and supports 20,000 jobs, to the smaller parades in Hayes, Biggin Hill, Coney Hall, Bickley and Keston. However, they remain under pressure from rising costs, inflation and high energy prices, and the same challenges are squeezing consumer spending. It is precisely the wrong time to rapidly reduce the business rates relief. For an independent pub in my constituency with a rateable value of £98,000, the changes to the relief and the increase in the standard multiplier will mean an increase of nearly £20,000 in its tax bill. It is especially reckless because this is not the only Government policy with an impact on our high streets. In one swoop, Ministers have also hiked the minimum wage, created swathes of new employment red tape and introduced a substantial increase in national insurance contributions. The Government have mixed an expensive, anti-business cocktail for our high streets that few businesses can afford. It will mean fewer jobs, less investment and closures, at a time when we want to grow our local economies. The Government’s boast at last year’s tax-hiking Budget was “a penny off the pint”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 820.] But behind that lacklustre announcement, they have not been honest about the collective impact of their policies, which are costing high street businesses an absolute fortune. If the Government are serious about securing investment and growing the economy, they need to rethink their decision to rapidly reduce this critical relief, before they hollow out Britain’s high streets and pull down the shutters for good.
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
That is the end of the statement, which has been going on for about 90 minutes.
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
The hon. Member has most definitely put her point on the record and those on the Treasury Bench will have been listening. It is not a matter for the Chair, but there are many opportunities that she can take up to put pressure on the Government; the Table Office can advise on that.
- Hansard source
Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry)
The Question is, That the right hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. [Hon. Members: “Aye!”] And of the contrary, No.
- Hansard source
Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry)
Order. I remind Members that vote must follow voice. A Member who opposes a motion by shouting “No” may not then vote in favour of it if there is a Division. I will give it one more go. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Jeremy Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, Mr Adnan Hussain, Shockat Adam, Zarah Sultana, Apsana Begum, Brian Leishman, Richard Burgon, Kim Johnson, Ellie Chowns, Ann Davies and Brendan O’Hara present the Bill. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 254).
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Requirement to inform customers about changes to prepackaged products— “(1) A supermarket must inform customers if— (a) there has been an increase in price per unit of measurement in any prepackaged product sold by the supermarket; and (b) this increase has resulted from a decrease in the quantity of the goods included within the package. (2) The requirement to inform customers must include a statement attached to the product, or placed alongside the product. (3) The statement must— (a) include the amount the quantity has decreased by and the amount the price per unit of measure has increased by; (b) be the same font size as the unit price of the product and must be visible and legible; and (c) be in place from the date of the change in unit quantity and remain in place for the following 60 days. (4) In this section— ‘prepackaged product’ is a product that has been wrapped or placed in a container before being made available for retail; ‘quantity of goods’ includes, but is not limited to— (a) weight of goods; (b) volume of goods; (c) number of units; ‘supermarket’ is a store with a sales area greater than 400m² of which 50% or more of the products sold are food products.” This new clause would place a requirement on supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product had decreased resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement. New clause 3—Reviews of potential country of origin labelling for meat products— “(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin of beef products sourced from the United States on menus. (2) The review must consider— (a) the potential public health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns related to beef production standards in the United States compared to those in the United Kingdom; (b) the practicality of creating regulations for the labelling of beef for food service businesses equivalent to the Beef and Veal Labelling (England) Regulations 2010; (c) consumer demand for country of origin information in relation to beef products; and (d) the practicality and cost implications for the hospitality sector. (3) The Secretary of State must, in undertaking the review, consult with representatives of the food and hospitality sectors, the National Farmers Union, food safety bodies, animal welfare groups, and any other stakeholders deemed relevant. (4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament within 6 months of the passing of this Act. (5) Within 6 months of laying the report under subsection (5) the Government must undertake a further review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin labelling for any meat product from any country with reference to the outcomes of the report under subsection (5). (6) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review under subsection (6) before Parliament within 6 months of the launch of that review.” This new clause requires the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of requiring food businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus. New clause 4—Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products— “(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom. (2) The label must be— (a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods; (b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and (c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product. (3) A product qualifies for the label if— (a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and (b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label. (5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system. (6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act. (7) In this section— ‘product’ includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale; ‘produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom’ includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.” This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers. New clause 5—Support and Guidance for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises— “(1) The Secretary of State must produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with any provisions made by regulations under this Act. (2) The guidance must include— (a) a summary of the key provisions of the Act relevant to SMEs; (b) practical advice on compliance requirements; (c) information on any available financial, technical, or advisory support; and (d) contact details for further enquiries or assistance. (3) The first version of the guidance must be published on the day this Act is passed. (4) Each time regulations are made under this Act, a revised version of the guidance must be published on the day the regulations are made.” This new clause would ensure that guidance and support for SMEs on the impact of the Bill should be available 60 days before implementation. New clause 6—Review of access to testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)— (1) The relevant Minister must undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act. (2) The review must include consideration of— (a) the typical costs incurred by SMEs in meeting relevant testing and certification requirements; (b) the availability and capacity of accredited testing providers serving SMEs; (c) any barriers to market access arising from testing and certification obligations; and (d) potential non-financial measures to support SMEs in meeting compliance requirements. (3) The Minister must publish a report on the findings of the review, including any recommendations, within 12 months of the commencement of this section.” This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act. New clause 7—Liability and redress for unsafe or defective products— “The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for— (a) the extension of liability for unsafe or defective products to online marketplaces and any other persons within the scope of section 2(3); (b) the disclosure of evidence in relation to claims for compensation or other rights of action in law for harm caused by unsafe or defective products and presumptions of liability that may arise accordingly; (c) proceedings, including collective proceedings, to ensure redress for consumers or other individuals suffering harm as a result of unsafe or defective products made available in breach of requirements imposed under powers given by this Act.” This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products, and to ensure that those suffering harm from unsafe or defective products can obtain redress. New clause 8—Alignment with EU law— “(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law. (2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament. (3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament. (4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.” This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK. New clause 9—Inclusion of lithium-ion batteries as a priority product category— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under this Act to include lithium-ion batteries as a specified product category subject to relevant safety, performance, labelling, environmental, and end-of-life requirements. (2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include— (a) provisions for minimum safety and performance standards for lithium-ion batteries placed on the UK market; (b) requirements for clear labelling, including information on capacity, cycle life, and safe handling; (c) obligations for manufacturers and importers relating to fire safety, product recalls, and end-of-life disposal or recycling; (d) powers for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement action in relation to non-compliant lithium-ion batteries. (3) In this section, a ‘lithium-ion battery’ means any rechargeable battery containing lithium compounds as a primary component of the electrochemical cell.[KM1] (4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the following stakeholders— (a) representatives of the battery industry, (b) environmental groups, (c) consumer safety organisations, (d) fire services, and (e) any other person whom the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.” This new clause would ensure that Lithium-ion batteries are included in the Bill. New clause 10—Duties of online marketplaces— “(1) Without prejudice to the generality of any other powers or duties conferred by this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about requirements that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e), including regarding duties— (a) to operate an online marketplace using effective systems and processes designed to monitor for, and identify, products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals and prevent such products being made available on or through the online marketplace; (b) to cooperate with relevant authorities, with other persons mentioned in subsection 2(3) or any other relevant persons, to facilitate any action taken to eliminate or, if that is not possible, to mitigate the risks presented by a product that is or was made available on or through their online marketplace; (c) to ensure that information regarding the identity and activities of persons marketing products on or through online marketplaces to consumers or other individuals is obtained and verified; (d) to remove products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals from availability on or through an online marketplace as quickly as possible if alerted to their presence or becomes aware of it in any other way. (2) Within 3 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a statement that sets out how the Secretary of State is exercising, or expects to exercise, the powers under subsection (1) regarding the proposed duties that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e).” This new clause provides a list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations, and for a statement by the Secretary of State to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section. New clause 11—Product recall— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations on product recall processes. (2) The regulations must include provision to ensure— (a) the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible, government-hosted online database of all active product recalls affecting the UK market; (b) clear obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to notify the appropriate enforcement authority and upload recall notices to the database promptly upon identification of a safety risk; (c) that recall notices include details of the affected product, risks identified, corrective action to be taken, and information on how consumers can claim a refund, replacement, or repair; and (d) minimum standards for direct communication to affected consumers, including by email, SMS, or postal notice where reasonably practicable. (3) The regulations must establish consumer rights entitling individuals to— (a) a full refund, suitable replacement, or repair of a recalled product within a reasonable timeframe; (b) access to support and guidance through the recall process, including where a product is no longer in production. (4) The Secretary of State must consult with consumer protection organisations, trading standards bodies, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section.” This new clause would ensure that a centralised Product Recall Mechanism is established to protect consumers. New clause 12—Local weights and measures authorities: review— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the funding and capabilities of local weights and measures authorities to carry out in an effective way their enforcement responsibilities under the regulatory framework provided by this Act and other trading standards and consumer protection laws. (2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult regulators and other persons likely to be affected by the review, including such representatives of consumer and business organisations as they consider appropriate.” This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to carry out a review of how the funding and capabilities of Trading Standards authorities affects their enforcement activities, to consult appropriate bodies and stakeholders and to lay the review before Parliament. New clause 13—International agreements— “(1) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section (1)(2) or section (2)(7) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under— (a) the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, (b) the Japan Economic Comprehensive Partnership Agreement, (c) the UK-Canada Continuity Trade Agreement, (d) The UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement, (e) the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, or (f) any other trade treaties to which the United Kingdom is, or becomes, a signatory, including any free trade agreement with the United States of America and India.” This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State making regulations to align with EU standards which would damage the UK’s current or future trade agreements. New clause 14—Review Panel— “(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (“the Panel”) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force. (2) The Panel must— (a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing— (i) their effect on economic growth; (ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis; (iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom; (b) prepare a report of the review, and (c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation. (3) The Panel must consist of— (a) at least one person with expertise in economics; (b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy; (c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.” This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning UK regulations with those of other countries or territories. New clause 15—Consultation on committee to examine changes to product regulations— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission a consultation on the creation of a committee on changes to product regulations. (2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider the suitability of current scrutiny mechanisms for assessing regulations created through the powers created or amended by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025. (3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consult— (a) the Chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee, (b) the Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, (c) the Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee, (d) the Chair of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and (e) the House of Commons Commission. (4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a consultation under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament— (a) a copy of the report of the consultation, and (b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that consultation.” The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on the establishment of a House of Commons committee that would examine all changes to product regulations which are made by the powers granted by this legislation. New clause 16—Regulations: requirement for certification— “When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must certify that their effect is not to undermine the resolve of our constitutional arrangements to honour the choice of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by means of subjecting the United Kingdom to the same law as the European Union so it could subsequently be argued that the United Kingdom should rejoin so it has a voice in making the legislation rather than adopting legislation that has already been made by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.” New clause 17—Brexit good faith statement— “When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must provide a statement (a “Brexit good faith statement”) setting out how in the development of the regulations it has sought to honour the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by developing, through the regulations, a legislative framework that intentionally seeks to exploit the opportunities afforded by Brexit to develop competitive and other advantages for the United Kingdom compared with the European Union in the global marketplace.” Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1). This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation. Amendment 10, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2). This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products. Amendment 11, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9. Amendment 32, page 1, line 10, leave out “the United Kingdom” and insert “Great Britain”. Amendment 25, page 1, line 11, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”. Amendment 12, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9. Amendment 7, page 1, line 14, at end insert— “(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.” This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations unless satisfied that the regulations will not reduce consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products. Amendment 8, page 1, line 21, at end insert— “(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom. (4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support— (a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and (b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.” This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion. Amendment 26, page 2, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert— “‘relevant foreign law’ means law of one or more of the United States of America, Canada, Japan, the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, or New Zealand relating to standards, the marketing, or use of products in those markets, which are in force on a specific date and only that date, as specified in regulations;” Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert— “(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.” This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products. Amendment 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert— “(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”. This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods. Amendment 16, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8). This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met. Amendment 27, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”. Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, at end insert— “(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.” This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date. Amendment 15, page 4, line 2, at end insert— “(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.” Amendment 28, page 4, line 5, at end insert— “(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make a statement in Parliament if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(7).” This amendment, and Amendments 25, 26 and 27, open up the possibility of defining product regulations by relation to the laws of countries other than the European Union, and require the justification of decisions to limit any such reference to the laws of one territory only. Amendment 29, page 4, line 5, at end insert— “(8B) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act shall be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom. (8C) The enforcement of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.” This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to foreign law, notably that of the EU, from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or the CJEU). Amendment 13, page 4, line 6, at end insert— “(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if— (a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and (b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law. Amendment 17, page 4, line 6, at end insert— “(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom. (11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.” This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU). Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsections (1) and (2). Amendment 22, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3). Amendment 23, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4). Amendment 24, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11). Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 37, at end insert— “‘circular economy’ means that products are manufactured to minimise waste and maximise the use, reuse, and recyclability of products;”. This amendment clarifies the meaning of “circular economy” and is consequential on Amendment 5. Amendment 4, page 12, line 21, at end insert— “(e) provision described in section [Product recall].” Amendment 1, in clause 13, page 13, line 4, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 5. This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 2, page 13, line 8, leave out subsections (4) and (5) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1. Amendment 30, page 13, line 8, at end insert— “(za) provision described in section 2(7);” This amendment would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to regulations under Clause 2(7), that is, any regulations which include referenced to relevant foreign law. Amendment 31, page 13, line 19, at end insert— “(4A) Any regulations made under section 1(1) or (2) which correspond to, are similar to, or make a reference to the requirement of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), expire at the end of four years from the date on which they come into force.” Amendment 18, page 13, line 24, at end insert— “(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. (6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must— (a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks; (b) publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation. (6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.” This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment 33, page 13, line 24, at end insert— “(6A) Where the regulations are for the purpose of applying to Great Britain regulations already applied to Northern Ireland by the European Union, Northern Ireland must also be involved in the said consultation on an equal basis with the rest of the United Kingdom.”
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
It gives me huge pleasure to call our resident metrology expert, Adam Thompson.
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Order. I accept that we have some experts in the Chamber, but I remind Members that speeches and interventions must relate to the business at hand and the amendments.
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
I remind Members that they are speaking to the amendments. There are 33 to choose from, so please keep your contributions appropriate.
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Three weeks ago, the winter fuel policy was set in stone. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister U-turned. Today, the Chancellor is rushing her plans because she just realised when winter is. So, on the behalf of the pensioners who want to know, can the Prime Minister be clear with us here and now: how many of the 10 million people who lost their winter fuel payments will get it back?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister clearly has selective amnesia. I asked him three questions about the winter fuel payment two weeks ago and he was floundering. The fact is he has not answered the question I asked him; he cannot tell us who will get the payments. All we see is U-turn after U-turn—his head must be spinning. Will he apologise now, including to his own Back Benchers, for taking the payments away in the first place? Can he tell us how he will pay for this?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Office for Budget Responsibility has said there was no such black hole. The Prime Minister has just given away £30 billion for the Chagos islands—that is his black hole. He has not stabilised the economy. Borrowing prices are higher now than at any time in the last Parliament. He has not stabilised the economy. He has no clear answers on what he is doing. It is just chaos, chaos, chaos. He keeps making announcements with no detail. Let’s move to another area of confusion. Can we get a simple answer: will the Government keep the two-child benefit cap?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I did not ask the Prime Minister about a taskforce. I asked him if he will keep the two-child benefit cap, and he does not know—it is just chaos and uncertainty. He has no details. He is briefing something and causing a lot of confusion to the people out there. On that two-child benefit cap, I tell him this: I believe in family, but I also believe in fairness. On the Conservative side of the House, we believe that people on benefits should have to make the same choices on having children as everyone else. What does the Prime Minister believe?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I asked the Prime Minister what he believes in. He had to look in his folder to find the answer. His MPs behind him know what they believe in—he does not know. He has been in government for nearly a year. It will only get harder and harder. The canned, forced laughter, the planted questions—all that will disappear because at every single point things are getting worse. He has to ask Morgan McSweeney what it is that he believes in, but the fact is that chaos is being felt in the economy. The Chancellor said she would not be coming back with new tax rises, but she will have to pay for all these U-turns she is announcing out there, won’t she?
- Hansard source
Engagements
It was our Government that stood behind Ukraine and led the way in Europe. Everything the Prime Minister has said this afternoon is total nonsense, obfuscation, and avoiding the question. He does not have any answers. It is disgraceful. I asked the Prime Minister about the two-child benefit cap; he is talking about the Kremlin. He is saying everything he can to distract from the mess he is making of our economy. The OECD has downgraded growth for the next two years. He cannot rule out tax rises. Police chiefs are saying that they do not have the money they need to keep the public safe, just as he is releasing more criminals on to the streets. His Cabinet are squabbling with each other, and they said that they have lost control of the borders, but he still managed to find £30 billion to give away the Chagos islands. This is total and utter chaos. Two weeks ago, he was crowing about his historic trade deal and how he got zero per cent tariffs on steel. Now the steel industry will face 25% tariffs unless he does exactly what President Trump tells him to. It is chaos, chaos, chaos—and isn’t the root of the chaos that it is about this Prime Minister, his decisions and his judgment?
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
The hon. and learned Member is making an important point, which is why I will support the Opposition amendments in this vein today. Does he agree that the reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords are important in bringing to light just how skeletal the Bill is, and is that not a reason why we should pay attention? We should not always leave it to the House of Lords to do our work for us. We should have those debates about the future on the Floor of this House, rather than having things done by ministerial diktat.