Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
My hon. Friend talks about the mess that the coalition Government, as it then was, inherited in 2010. Does he recall that youth unemployment was running at about 10%? The coalition and then the Conservative Government were successful in rebuilding the nation’s finances. Painful as those decisions were, at the same time that Government created 800 jobs every single day from 2010 to 2024.
What a great speech to follow. I have an ambition to reach 25 minutes, so here we go. I should start by making reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was challenged by a Labour Member—I am not quite sure which one—and I should declare my background in entrepreneurialism. I ran an SME and then created something called an employee ownership trust, having employed well over 1,000 people. I am also a director of a farming company, which will perhaps have some relevance to my later comments. This has been a very lively, interesting and well-informed debate—I have certainly enjoyed it so far—and it has been interesting in what it has revealed about Labour Members and Opposition Members. We have had no fewer than three academic economists speaking from the Labour Benches and we have had businesspeople with real-life experience of the economy speaking from the Opposition Benches. One might think, “Well, surely economists know lots about the economy.” You would have thought so, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if we look at how the Government have responded since 4 July, with their obvious surprise at business confidence going through the floor, we begin to see how out of touch academic economists can be when faced with the facts of the real economy. It is undoubtedly the case that business confidence has collapsed. The BDO optimism index has now sunk—this is the latest figure—to 91.36%. What does that mean? What it really means is that it is the lowest since the entire world economy was shut down by covid. Looking at any one of a number of indices, both business confidence and consumer confidence have gone down massively as a result of Labour’s election. That prompts the question why there has been such surprise on the Government Benches that their actions have been so ill received by the people who drive the economy. One of the reasons is that the country as a whole—and businesses in particular—was actively misled by Labour in the run-up to the general election. We were all told that Labour had no plans for tax rises beyond those that had already been announced. We were all told that Labour’s plans were fully funded and fully costed and that they did not require tax rises above those set out in the manifesto.
I am grateful for that intervention. I joined this House in 2019, but the original Brexit debate had hyperbole on both sides. We had Project Fear saying we would need an immediate fiscal event as soon as we had the referendum, but that did not take place. Growth has actually continued since the referendum back in 2016. In fact, growth in the United Kingdom has outpaced that of Germany, France and Italy, and, for that matter, Japan. There were a lot of arguments, both one way and the other, over the likely consequences of Brexit. My takeaway is that, overwhelmingly, it has not made that much difference to the world economy or to Britain’s relationship with the world. There have, undoubtedly, been some trade frictions, and those have been particularly acute for SME import/export—I recognise that. But overall, trade has continued, and we have actually outperformed our European big economy neighbours.
As I said, we had a huge change to how our country was governed, which was dictated to us by the people, because we are a democracy. One of the reasons I entered Parliament was that, despite voting remain in 2016, I was outraged as a democrat by the failure of Parliament between 2016 and 2019 to effect the will of the people, as clearly expressed in a referendum. That pushed me from being an activist to being a politician in order to effect the will of the people. Since then, there have been pros and cons. There are a lot of pros, and over the past five years I have seen for myself how important some of our Brexit freedoms have been. If there were a plebiscite today on whether to leave or rejoin the European Union, I would vote without hesitation to leave, because I have seen some of the benefits. In my area, the common agricultural policy was a disaster, both economically and socially, and had a hugely negative impact on the environment, farms and countryside of Broadland and right across the country. With our Brexit freedoms, we replaced that with the environmental land management scheme, a wholly beneficial policy change—imperfect though it was; it was part of an iterative process to learn from our experience with farmers. That would have been impossible without Brexit. Similarly, some of the trade deals we have done would have been impossible without Brexit, as would myriad regulations that have been improved just a little in all those Delegated Legislation Committees we have all enjoyed so much over the years. Much of that could not have been achieved without Brexit. None of those regulations will reach the front pages of the newspapers, but iteratively, over the years, they have the opportunity to make our economy and our society stronger. That is one of the main reasons I was so disappointed by the Government’s capitulation to the European Union on dynamic alignment just a couple of days ago. We have taken on the disadvantages of non-membership of the European Union—we become rule takers—without any of the benefits of dynamic divergence of our regulatory system, which would allow us to bend our rules most accurately to reflect the opportunities of our own economy. That was an interesting divergence, but I will now come back to the main argument of my speech, which is that Labour misled the people in the run-up to the general election. It said that its policies would be fully funded and fully costed. It said that there would be no taxes on working people, and it expressly said in its manifesto that there would be no increased tax on national insurance contributions. What is reality? Labour chose to use a fig leaf, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) might have said, which is this fabricated £22 billion black hole in the economy—the black hole, by the way, that the OBR failed to find. The former Financial Times journalist, the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who is no longer in her place, might recall that the Financial Times also failed to find the £22 billion black hole in the economy. Labour uses that figure as a fig leaf not to raise £22 billion—no, that would be sufficiently unambitious—but to raise £40 billion of tax and another £32 billion of debt. It has done that by focusing the tax on jobs. National insurance contributions are focused on young people, part-time workers, and women in particular. The Employment Rights Bill put another £5 billion on taxation—on the Government’s own impact assessment. The increase in high street business rates is inexplicable in a period of such strain on our businesses, and that is not to mention the effect of agricultural property relief. What is the result? Some 200,000 businesses have closed, which is a 20-year high—a high only beaten by the previous Labour Government. In January 2025, corporate insolvencies were up 10.7%. That is the highest since the financial crisis when Labour was last in power. Unemployment was up 10% to 4.5%. The Bank of England forecasts that it will go up further to 5%. Youth unemployment was up 11%. This feeds into the well-worn war narrative that Labour always leaves government with unemployment higher than when it arrived. The Government must stop and think again. I know that they were new to government; they had been out of power for 14 years, and they have made some really profound, rookie mistakes, but we must not let our businesses and those employed pay the price for that. The Government should look again and seek to recover their economic reputation.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A moment ago he told the House that real household disposable incomes were rising as a result of this Government, but does he not accept that the OBR, when critiquing the Budget last October, found that during the forecast period real household disposable incomes would fall as a result of the Budget proposals?
Will the Minister give way?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the official Opposition as we consider the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2025. As Members will be aware, the instrument proposes an increase to the Government’s resource borrowing limit from £1,779.351 million to £1,834.303 million, and the capital borrowing limit from £3,050.316 million to £3,144.519 million. This represents an uplift of around 3.1% for both limits, which is in line with the annual inflation adjustments in previous years. This is not the first time that this House or its Committees have considered such an order. These annual increases have become a routine feature of the fiscal framework between the UK Government and the devolved Administration in Scotland. This is process is familiar, but that does not mean that we should treat it as a routine exercise. What we are considering today is the capacity for the Scottish Government to borrow funds and, as in this place, that comes with significant responsibility, not just to the Treasury but to the people of Scotland—our constituents. To be clear, the UK Government, under successive Conservative Administrations between 2010 and 2024, consistently recognised the importance of providing the Scottish Government with the appropriate tools to manage their finances. These borrowing limits are not arbitrary figures; they are designed to strike a balance between providing flexibility for the Scottish Government and maintaining fiscal discipline across the UK. The annual uplift ensures that the real value of these borrowing powers is preserved in the face of inflation. However, greater borrowing levels must come with significantly greater scrutiny and far more robust accountability. It is simply not sufficient to approve increases year on year without requiring clear, transparent accounts of how the borrowed sums are being spent. It is the role of this House, and particularly of those of us representing Scottish constituencies, to ensure that every penny borrowed on behalf of the Scottish people is spent wisely and for the benefit of our communities. Currently, there are mechanisms in place for this oversight—the UK Treasury and the Scotland Office provide some level of monitoring—but, frankly, given the sums involved and the track record of the Scottish National party Administration at Holyrood, we must ask whether those are enough. There is a pressing need for improved transparency and much more detailed public reporting on how the Scottish Government allocate and spend these funds. Regular independent audits and clear public reporting are essential steps towards rebuilding public confidence, which has been sorely tested in recent years. This is not a theoretical concern. Questions have been raised about the efficiency of capital projects overseen by the Scottish Government, with serious doubts about the value delivered for the substantial sums invested. From the delays in ferry services, to millions spent on a climate review to excuse the SNP failing to deliver the dualling of the A96, to ongoing issues with the NHS, the public have witnessed too many examples of funds being allocated to projects without clear, demonstrable outcomes. The Scottish people expect to see real, tangible improvements in infrastructure, public services and their local economies, and they deserve transparency about how these funds are being spent. While we acknowledge that the SNP Government have significant devolved powers, they have too often fallen short of the standard of fiscal transparency that the people of Scotland have the right to expect. This Government, therefore, should consider what specific checks and balances they will institute to ensure that the increased borrowing is used efficiently and effectively. It is one thing to increase the borrowing capacity, but it is another to demonstrate that those funds are being used to create tangible improvements in communities across Scotland. The previous Conservative Government consistently sought to improve transparency and accountability in Scotland’s financial dealings, and we should expect the same from the Labour Government. It is crucial that this House remains an active participant in scrutinising the Scottish Government’s financial decisions. While we do not oppose this order, recognising its routine and necessary nature, I urge the Government to use this moment to strengthen the systems of oversight and reporting that accompany these powers. The people of Scotland—those in our constituencies and beyond—deserve nothing less than the highest standards of accountability. They deserve to know that their money is being used in the best way possible, and that the Scottish Government are prioritising projects that bring real benefits for our communities.
The industries and business groups that are leaving the country quicker than any others are in the oil and gas sector. Investors in oil and gas—in the North sea, Aberdeenshire, and my Gordon and Buchan constituency—are fleeing the country at an astounding rate, taking investment, skills and jobs with them. We are losing a generation of investors, skills and skilled workers. What does the shadow Minister think we should do to keep those skills, that investment and those jobs in the UK?
I just wanted to clarify whether inflation at 3.5% is higher or lower than inflation at 2%, which is where it was last July.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his role in securing this vital debate and all Members who contributed. As we have heard today, Parkinson’s affects 153,000 people in the UK; more shockingly, every hour, two more people are diagnosed. For me, the issue is personal: a close family member was initially diagnosed and treated for Parkinson’s, but more recently that diagnosis was revised to progressive supranuclear palsy—a rarer and more aggressive condition. That journey from uncertainty to diagnosis and then to living with a progressive neurological condition has profoundly impacted me. I have witnessed first hand the critical importance of early diagnosis, emotional support, specialist care and—above all—hope. Last month, ahead of World Parkinson’s Day, I met representatives of Parkinson’s UK and individuals affected by the condition. I heard powerful accounts from volunteers about the daily challenges that they face with mobility issues, speech difficulties and the emotional toll on themselves and their families. I will continue to commend Parkinson’s UK for its tireless work, both across my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, including Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, and across the country, providing advice, support and advocacy at every stage of the Parkinson’s journey. However, I have been concerned that the Labour Government have yet to identify Parkinson’s as a strategic priority. Will the Minister confirm what level of funding is being allocated to Parkinson’s research this year? How does that compare with the past five years? During my tenure at the NHS Getting It Right First Time programme, I was involved in the publication of the neurology national specialty report. That analysis highlighted significant variation in neurological services across England, particularly in managing conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. The recommendations are essential for reducing disparities and improving outcomes, so will the Minister commit to addressing in detail the priorities in the report, beyond general references to cutting waiting lists? The previous, Conservative Government invested more than £79 million into research into Parkinson’s between 2019 and 2024; in 2022-23, the National Institute for Health and Care Research enabled 114 studies related to Parkinson’s through its infrastructure. We also rolled out a new treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease through the NHS, which started in February last year, offering an additional option for patients whose symptoms were no longer responding to oral medication. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government plan to continue that momentum. What research funding will be maintained or increased and what new treatment options are being supported or explored? The new Government have committed to updating the last Conservative Government’s long-term workforce plan. When will they announce the detail and what specialist training there will be for Parkinson’s nurses and clinicians? Will they maintain the focus on specialist care? Charities such as Parkinson’s UK do an amazing job, but as with many other sectors they are having to respond to higher taxes and squeezed funding. Will the Minister outline how he is talking to the charitable sector to ensure that the changes that the Government are making in the Budget are not damaging Parkinson’s care? Finally, what guarantees can the Minister offer that the recent restructuring of NHS England will not worsen access to Parkinson’s services? With 50% cuts to integrated care boards, can the Minister reassure people that Parkinson’s sufferers and their families will not be disadvantaged? Members from across the House are united in wanting to improve treatment, support and outcomes for people with Parkinson’s. In response to a debate I spoke in earlier this month, the Public Health Minister said that she would be happy to meet with stakeholder organisations to discuss the Parky charter and the progress of Parkinson’s Connect pilots. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the Public Health Minister has arranged those meetings and, if she has not, when they might happen. A meeting would prove the Government’s action on workforce, waiting times, integration, support for carers, and access to research and innovation. My colleagues in the Conservative party and I stand ready to work constructively with the Government, and with Members from all parties, to ensure that progress is not only protected but accelerated. Let us match awareness with action, for only with action will there be hope.
9. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
I listened carefully to the answers the Secretary of State gave just now to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). The Secretary of State must understand the severe anxiety, particularly for our veterans, caused by not having a timescale on this matter. Will he at least commit to putting in place a deadline? Will he also take seriously the findings of the Policy Exchange report?
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I suggest an informal four-minute limit to allow all those who wish to speak to do so.
I call the Minister, with a reminder to finish by 3.58 pm at the latest.
I will call Anna Sabine to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. If anyone does not have that twin permission, they should not and may not speak. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
I will give no advice, but the Minister will.
Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House.
We have five Back-Bench speakers. I will call the Front Benchers at 5.23 pm, so I will let hon. Members make a judgment on that. We will start with the ever-succinct and effective Ed Morello.
Admirably delivered.
I am grateful to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. Let me start by thanking all those who contributed and from all sides of the House, but particularly my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have highlighted so clearly the devastating impact that job losses and business closures have on families, communities and our national economy. I should also thank those on the Opposition Benches—sorry, I mean the Government Benches; it will not be too long. Is it not amazing that just three Labour Members were brave enough to speak? I pay tribute to them: the hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), and the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who is not in her place. So proud are they of their economic performance that only 1% of the parliamentary Labour party actually bothered to show up to a debate on the economy—but then 1% is a pretty high figure for the Labour party. The truth is that since last July we have all heard a story of someone who is struggling to figure out how they will pay their new tax bills, or struggling to find a new job or pay their energy bills, which just keep on rising, despite people being told that they would go down. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made very good contributions in interventions and speeches today. I cannot mention them all, but in particular I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who highlighted that businesses are people. That is something I mentioned in my maiden speech. My dad set up a business; he took a risk and made it work. He made it happen, despite it being very difficult. My right hon. Friend is right; when we in this place tax businesses, we are taxing people. It is something that we understand and the Government do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) speaks with great authority, not least because he has employed so many people and driven so much growth. He is a proud colleague of mine. He highlighted right at the beginning the potent combination of taxation on businesses; it is not just one tax but a combination of taxes that are hitting retail businesses in particular, and there is also red tape being implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about his farmers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) highlighted the impact of the NICs threshold increase, which is not always talked about—there was a two-pronged attack on businesses and people in that the rate changed and the threshold changed—as well as hospitality businesses in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) also did that—he talked about his pubs—and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) spoke about his personal experience from his previous career and his experience from his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) pointed out that if Ministers spent a bit more time listening and a little less time talking, perhaps the economy would not be in as bad a state as it is. This time last year, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were talking at people, telling anyone who would listen that the “growth lever” would be very first lever they would reach for in government, but the only economic lever they did manage to pull was the handbrake, otherwise known as the tax lever. Labour’s first Budget was the second-biggest tax raising fiscal event in the last 50 years, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) pointed out in an excellent speech, took the tax burden to the highest level on record. On growth, forecasts have been downgraded across the board by the OBR, the BOE, the OECD and the IMF—by this point, Labour’s economic performance has been panned by just about every letter in the alphabet. Labour Members can crow all they want about growth data from the first quarter of this year, but it does not change the fact that growth was higher under the Conservatives during the same quarter of 2024. Debates about growth figures are not purely academic, as the Labour academics would have us believe; they have real-world consequences for workers and businesses up and down the country, most obviously when it comes to employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out, no Labour Government have ever left office with lower unemployment than they inherited. That is perhaps because in the last 60 years every Labour Government have left office with a higher tax burden than when they started. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), highlighted at the beginning of the debate, the ONS says that there are 150,000 fewer payrolled employees in our country than there were last July when Labour entered office. We have had significant falls in employment by that measure in seven of the last nine months. Let us put that into context: that follows 42 months of near unbroken payroll growth under the Conservatives as we exited the pandemic. In that time, we saw 2.2 million workers added to payrolls, leaving payroll employment 1.4 million higher than it was pre-pandemic. That is the difference that a Labour Government make: they send job recovery into reverse. Hiring expectations for the next three months are at a record low. Unemployment is going up and up, with the Bank of England now forecasting 5% unemployment by 2027. Of course, it is in the most heavily taxed sectors that we see the greatest damage. Earlier this month, 250 jobs were cut by Harbour Energy in the North sea after Labour raised the tax on the sector to some 78%. In retail and hospitality, it is small businesses who are hardest hit by the national insurance increases and the business rates relief cut. Labour Ministers talk about difficult decisions, but they are not the ones who are having to reduce opening hours, close on weekends, freeze pay and make redundancies of family members—mums and dads who just want to get up and go to work—just to survive. In too many cases, we are seeing local businesses close down for good. The country is witnessing the fastest growth of corporate closure since Labour was last in office. The great irony of the Chancellor’s much lauded securonomics is that it has created insecurity and business uncertainty. Entrepreneurship is being suppressed and jobs are being sacrificed on the altar of Labour’s sanctimony. They have the brass neck to go about claiming that this is all in order to restore stability and the public finances, when the independent National Institute of Economic and Social Research has predicted that the true size of the Chancellor’s black hole is £60 billion. Let us talk about black holes. The stable geniuses on the Government Front Bench took pensioners’ winter fuel payment away for the winter, but now that summer is appearing they talk about restoring it. They are taking pensioners for fools. What’s next—lower fuel duty for cyclists? The damage is already done. Who is to say that Labour will not be back in the winter to cut fuel payments again, just in time for Christmas, especially as Downing Street cannot guarantee today that the proposed changes will be ready by then? We shall see. In Labour’s fiscal funfair, the only ride is a merry-go-round. Round and round the vicious cycle goes, to the point where we no longer ask whether Labour’s next Budget will bring in more tax rises, but which taxes it will hike. We do not ask whether the next Budget will downgrade growth forecasts, but by how much. We do not ask whether the next Budget will support jobs, but how much higher unemployment can really go under Labour. As we found out this morning, the Deputy Prime Minister has put in her first draft, briefed to the press, for the Chancellor’s next Budget. Raising taxes on pensioners—that will hurt growth. Raising taxes on retail investment—that is anti-growth. Raising taxes on incomes—that is definitely anti-growth. When in a hole, stop digging. Labour simply cannot tax its way to jobs and growth, but it seems utterly determined to learn that the hard way. Our motion calls on the Government to learn from their mistakes and urgently change course. On behalf of millions of British workers and businesses across this country, I commend this motion to the House.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I declare my professional and personal interest in this subject as a veterinary surgeon. I am delighted that there is clear consensus across the House on the need to tackle livestock worrying and attacks. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury on securing the passage of this vital and important Bill. I cannot continue without congratulating and paying tribute to the many groups in this space that have championed reform, such as the National Sheep Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers’ Union, and the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, which I now co-chair with Lord Trees, who is also a vet. Sadly, as a veterinary surgeon, I have seen at first hand the tragic effects of dog attacks. I have met with farmers right across the country who have impressed upon me the importance of protecting our livestock. This Bill unfortunately did not quite succeed in completing the parliamentary process in the previous Parliament. It was first introduced under the previous Conservative Government as part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—this is like groundhog day for the Minister and me, as we sat on that Bill Committee together—and then sponsored by our friend the former Member for Suffolk Coastal, Thérèse Coffey, who now has been rightly elevated to a seat in the House of Lords for her services to the House and to DEFRA. Baroness Coffey contributed to the Conservative Government’s great efforts to improve animal welfare in this area and others, cementing this country’s world-leading status. Our achievements included introducing pet abduction as a specific criminal offence, increasing penalties for animal cruelty, banning livestock being exported for slaughter or fattening, and—not in a private Member’s Bill, but in Government legislation—enshrining animal sentience into law under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. The Animal Sentience Committee was created so that any legislation passed by this House has to pay due regard to the concept of animal sentience. That is a clear achievement on which I am sure we can agree across the House. Sadly, statistics from the National Sheep Association make stark reading on the real issue that livestock worrying presents for our livestock and for the farmers whose livelihoods depend on them. In a 2025 survey by the association, 87% of respondents said that they had experienced a dog attack on one of their sheep in the past 12 months, and 4% of those said that they had experienced between 10 and 30 such incidents in the past 12 months. Those are shocking figures. The impact of worrying on livestock is a huge welfare concern for the animals affected. Physically, livestock that face worrying can be hurt. Sadly, if an attack results, they may die or have to be euthanised because of their wounds. The National Sheep Association survey found that only 20% of farmers were alerted directly of an incident that affected their livestock. Many incidents are not dealt with straightaway, which can delay lifesaving treatment of the animals. Physical injuries can come not only from the attack itself, but from the sheer distress that the threat of a dangerous uncontrolled dog can cause. Trauma can often cause the injury of livestock that over-exert themselves fleeing the danger. In areas with a boundary or wall, where livestock are often kept, fleeing can cause stampedes in which livestock are crushed in an attempt to escape. The trauma can cause pregnant livestock, such as sheep, to miscarry; born young can be lost and separated from the dam in attempts to escape the attack, which puts those young livestock at risk. Emotional trauma is not something that farmers of affected livestock are immune to. The sight of a livestock attack can be emotionally distressing, and the memory can stay with farmers way beyond the end of the attack. Likewise, the financial cost resulting from the injuries caused to livestock, or from the loss of livestock, can create long-term emotional distress for our farmers. The financial cost of farm animals being killed or injured by dogs is estimated to have totalled £1.8 million last year, according to NFU Mutual. One can only imagine the significant financial and emotional consequences spread across the farming population. Only last week, I had the privilege of attending a roundtable led by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, which highlighted that the health of our farming communities is interlinked with their emotional and financial wellbeing. It is crucial that we tackle the shock factors that can have a knock-on impact. Livestock worrying and attacks are among the shocks, and the Bill is a vital place to start tackling the wider issue. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury cares very deeply about rural mental health; the Bill will help to mitigate the mental health effects on our rural communities. As 98% of respondents to the National Sheep Association survey believe that additional police powers are needed, I highly welcome the fact that clauses 2, 3 and 4 will give them exactly that. Under clause 2, the police’s power to seize dogs that they have good reason to believe have been involved in an offence under the 1953 Act will be expanded to cover dogs found on roads or paths that may have been or could be involved in offences. That is an important addition to the legislation that will help to close some of the loopholes. It is a crucial measure that will enable police to act swiftly to begin the process of investigation and prevent any further harm to animals or human beings. Another important step that will strengthen police powers to tackle the issue is the permission granted under clause 3 for police and veterinary surgeons to take samples or impressions, where appropriate, from animals wounded by livestock worrying, or indeed from the animals involved, to support law enforcement in finding the supporting evidence for a criminal offence and bringing the necessary charges. The NFU has championed the measure, which, if used in the right way, could be vital to ensuring that those who commit these offences are brought to justice. The value of that cannot be overstated. As the NFU has pointed out in its campaigning, livestock worrying incidents are too often under-reported. What support will the Government provide to ensure that DNA testing systems can be a consistent and reliable method of identification and a consistent and reliable evidence-gathering tool? The NFU highlights research into the issue by Liverpool John Moores University, but are the Government prepared to support such research and translate it into practice? If advances are made, what steps will they take to support police forces across the country in implementing the methods effectively as soon as possible? The possibilities of DNA testing could change the game when it comes to prosecuting reckless dog owners. That, in turn, could increase farmers’ confidence that if they report offences, they will get the action that they need from the police. Clause 4 will introduce an important extension of the police’s ability to investigate livestock worrying and attacks, and will make the system effective in prosecuting offences under the 1953 Act. It will permit police with a warrant to search properties in which there are suspected to be dogs that were involved in such offences. That is important, because it will end the feeling, which far too many people have, that once an attack or worrying event has taken place, nothing will be done to bring justice for victims or prosecute perpetrators. That approach is to be welcomed, but a core focus on the criminal justice lens must be only one pillar of our strategy for tackling the issue. Criminal justice can intervene only after the fact, once the incident has taken place and the damage of worrying or attacks has been done. Prevention is much better than cure, so another pillar of the strategy must be responsible dog ownership. The previous Conservative Government set up a responsible dog ownership working group, in which police, stakeholders and animal welfare groups came together to encourage better education and guidance on how people can keep pets safe, as well as keeping other animals and humans around their pets safe. That includes ensuring that owners understand the necessity of keeping dogs on leads around livestock, and that they know how to control their pets to prevent them from becoming a threat. The significant reduction in the cost of livestock worrying, injury or death in Wales between 2023 and 2024—from £883,000 to £314,000, a decrease of 64%—has been attributed to factors such as education campaigns, Blue Cross training courses for dog owners, effective rural crime teams and social media outreach. I also highlight the importance of the countryside code, which gives good guidance on being with a dog in a rural area. It is important that we amplify that educational message; it is therefore expedient that responsible dog ownership be worked on in parallel with excellent legislation such as this Bill. It is unfortunate that the present Government have not addressed the working group or its future, although they have said that they will work with police, local authorities, animal welfare groups and veterinary groups on the concept of dog ownership. I am a good friend of the Minister, for whom I have deep respect, but I gently ask him what the Government mean when they say that they are working with police, local authorities and animal welfare groups to tackle the problem. Are those involved in the responsible dog ownership working group involved in discussions with the Government? Will they be able to make recommendations to the Government, as the working group could? How often are the Government talking to those they say they are working with? Will the Government confirm that they understand that responsible dog ownership is a vital component of tackling livestock worrying and attacks? Much of the discussion today has focused on sheep and cattle, but it is important to note that livestock worrying and attacks also affect horses, ponies and donkeys. I also welcome paragraph 2 of the schedule, because we know the impact that livestock worrying can have on camelids such as alpacas and llamas. I have met alpaca farmers who have impressed on me how important it is that the legislation cover camelids. Despite my constructive questions to the Minister, I reiterate my wholehearted support for the Bill and urge colleagues across the political divide to support it, as I am sure they will.
Before the Minister finishes his remarks, I want to ask him one question. He said he would talk about what the Government are doing on responsible dog ownership. This discrete, and welcome, piece of legislation will do a lot to protect animal health and welfare, but it is part of a package of measures. We need to ensure that people who own dogs source them responsibly, train them responsibly, socialise them responsibly and manage them responsibly. How will this Government continue the work of the Conservative Government, who set up the responsible dog ownership working group? How will they ensure that the medium and longer-term piece of work, which will not be easy, is done in parallel? Legislation has been passed about XL bully dogs in the last couple of years—another discrete piece of legislation —but there must be work in parallel on responsible dog ownership. I would be grateful if the Minister said what his Government will do in that space.
May I thank everyone involved, behind the scenes and front of house, in passing this important piece of legislation? Thank you, Mr Western.
Q7. I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister might be a lawyer, trained to review evidence and reach judgment. When he looks at the effects of his decisions—cutting the winter fuel payment and making pensioners poorer, damaging businesses with the jobs tax, decimating rural communities with the family farm tax and risking our food security by selling off our fishing waters—surely he can review the evidence and see the verdict. Will the Prime Minister throw those damaging policies out of his court once and for all, before they do any more harm?
7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the US-UK economic prosperity deal on Northern Ireland.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, but there seem to be wildly different interpretations of what the deal means for Northern Ireland. Will he clarify what it means for imports and exports in the light of the impact of EU tariffs? Was that explicitly discussed at the EU-UK summit?
Exactly to that point, is it not a shame that for the first time ever since records began in 2012, the number of new businesses registered at Companies House has fallen? The exact risk-taking behaviour that we need to grow the economy is not taking place; is that not a damning indictment of what this Government are doing?
The problem with the Employment Rights Bill is not only its implied cost and the red tape it will introduce, but the fact that it is a poor piece of legislation in the first place. The Government’s own regulatory independent commission has said that eight of the 23 criteria are not fit for purpose. Does my hon. Friend not agree that if the Bill is to proceed, it should be reworked?
I think it goes wider than that across the top of Government, because Members on both sides of this House are grappling with what to do about people who are long-term unemployed. If we make it more likely that companies will not take a risk on getting someone back into work while increasing unemployment at the same time, we will create a toxic concoction at a time that we are trying to get people back into jobs because we know that that is better for the economy and better for them, their health and their family. Does my hon. Friend agree?
I would argue that it is actually worse than that. A study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that business confidence is at the same level it was in the pandemic. In the pandemic, businesses shut up shop and were not sure they would ever open again, and that is the level of business confidence we are dealing with at the moment. A quarter of businesses say they will lay people off, and that is the reality out there. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why the Government need to listen, and change course?
The key thing is, the Conservatives are in favour of free trade, just not at any cost. That has been the biggest problem with these deals. The Minister says that the previous Government did not sign off on them, and for jolly good reason—that is the point we are trying to get across. There will be people queuing up to come to the UK because they see us as a soft touch now and think they can get anything out of us. That is what we want to stop.
Employment statistics are really important. In the Minister’s constituency, unemployment has risen by a staggering 31% in the past year. In my constituency, it has gone up by about 10%. That will have a real impact. Perhaps he will come on to how he will support people into work, because it looks like unemployment has gone up by 10% across the country. That is a real concern for people, as they need to work and look after their families.
One fact is that the claimant count and unemployment rate in Swansea West have gone up by 4% on the previous year. What does the Minister say to his constituents when they confront him because they are losing their jobs and the unemployment rate has gone up?
Will the Minister give way?
Will the Minister give way?
Will the Minister give way?
Will the Minister give way?
I am very grateful to the Minister; now that I know that formally, I look forward to being able to intervene in future. I would be grateful for clarity on the Prime Minister’s policy. In 2020, he wrote a letter in which he defended migrants’ rights and made a positive case for immigration, yet in his recent speech he talked about crafting an “island of strangers”. Will the Minister provide clarity on which of the two the Prime Minister believes when it comes to immigration policy?
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Will the hon. Member give way?