SEND Funding
2. What recent assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of local authority funding for SEND.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
SEND Funding
The Secretary of State is well aware that the East Riding of Yorkshire receives the lowest level of funding for children with SEND, and I hope that the current review gives the Government an opportunity to rectify that. On a wider point, parents like me often look ahead to the school holidays with a sense of dread, because the provision for out-of-school activities for children with SEND is so limited and what is available is often expensive. As part of this review, will she look at what more can be done by local authorities to provide opportunities for young people with SEND outside term time?
- Hansard source
Headingley Incident
The Minister mentioned her meeting with Laura Sugden, and I pay tribute to Laura for her campaigning on the issue. It is more than seven years since Anthony Lawrence brutally murdered Laura’s partner Shane Gilmer. Laura was attacked with a crossbow, and was pregnant at the time. I know that a response to the consultation is coming, but can the Minister give us more detail about the timetable for that response? What next steps will we likely see?
- Hansard source
Child Rape Gangs
I am concerned that some of the people involved in local authority inquiries could be the very same individuals who have covered up these heinous crimes for years. Why is the Minister so unwilling to seek justice for the victims of these child rape gangs through a national statutory inquiry?
- Hansard source
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
Having been elected more recently, I am somewhat less burdened by previous legislation, but let me be clear: having worked in sports administration for many years, I have serious misgivings about a Government regulator in football. I know that this legislation started out as a very well-meaning initiative, but I have concerns—they have already been raised by other hon. Members—about creeping scope and the potential impact of Government meddling in a great British success story. It is hard to argue that the premier league is not England’s finest export. It is the envy of global football, a competitive and unpredictable league that attracts the biggest names in the game to play in front of packed stadia, with hundreds of millions more watching around the world. The league contributes over £8 billion to the UK economy, pays £4 billion in tax, and employs over 90,000 people. Its reach is truly unparalleled, as other hon. Members have referenced. I have seen kids wearing Chelsea shirts in rural Rwanda and met Man United fans in Pyongyang—in fact, it may surprise the House to know that the premier league is widely watched in North Korea, albeit through pirated broadcasts. However, I understand that Spurs do not regularly feature in the coverage, thanks to their captain Son Heung-min. I am sympathetic to fans up and down the country who fear that the owner of their football club is going to run it into the ground. As a Leeds fan, I know a thing or two about bad ownership and financial mismanagement, and we have heard some good examples of that from Members representing Reading and Sheffield Wednesday. However, we should dispel the myth that every football club owner is some super-rich maniac trying to squander their fortune in order to destroy a local football club.
- Hansard source
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
I disagree on the ideological level—on the ideological point about who should regulate football. I will come on to that in a second, but I do not believe it is the Government’s job. I believe that the football landscape already provides for regulation.
- Hansard source
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
No, I will make some progress on this point, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. As a former employee of a football club, Hull City, and as someone who has worked for a national governing body of a sport at the Rugby Football Union, and for a national elite sport funding body at UK Sport, I have some experience of this issue. Each of those bodies—the EFL, the EPL and the FA—has a role in regulation.
- Hansard source
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
Those of us who support a club that was previously owned by Ken Bates and Massimo Cellino have had our fair share of rough ownership over the years. Coming back to the wider landscape and who should regulate, above the Football Association, EFL and EPL we have UEFA and FIFA as international bodies representing the global game, and they each have a regulatory function. I believe that instead of the Government creating yet another quango, headed up by a Labour party crony, they should be working with the Premier League, EFL and FA to resolve current concerns such as financial sustainability and fit and proper ownership. That would be a far more satisfactory outcome for the clubs and ensure that sport and politics are kept at arm’s length.
- Hansard source
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
The hon. Member raises a very good point. FIFA’s recent history is not a proud one, but we do not have time to go into that. There is an important point about the way in which UEFA and FIFA operate within the landscape. There is a danger that measures including parachute payments, which affect competition tools and structures, being in the scope of the Bill places the Government on a collision course with those international federations. That has already been discussed. Ultimately, the fact we are here discussing this Bill today is a sad indictment of the relationship between the existing stakeholders. However, it is not beyond the wit of Government to find solutions that do not involve a new regulator. [Interruption.] Well, I am not burdened by previous legislation. I also worry that the Bill is playing to a certain viewpoint among EFL clubs that money from the bottom half of the premier league should be redistributed en masse to the championship. Those clubs argue that that would give the promoted clubs—one of which I am a fan of—a better chance of success. I fear that could have serious unintended consequences. It could create a small group of entrenched successful clubs at the top of the premier league and ultimately damage competition, as the top clubs accumulate more and more wealth, to the detriment of clubs lower down. It would effectively end any chance of a club such as Leicester winning the title, or teams such as Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford and Nottingham Forest cementing themselves in the league and challenging for Europe. It would be another two-tier system created by this Labour Government. The idea that the championship is a poor relation is also false. Every championship club receives £7.8 million from the Premier League, which is between 20% and 40% of their typical annual revenue. The EFL has recently signed a domestic broadcast deal worth more than £900 million, increasing its own revenues by 50%, and the championship is already the sixth-richest league in Europe. Finally, I want to address the issue of the medium to long-term future of the regulator. This legislation has morphed from creating an independent regulator with a narrow scope to creating a Government regulator headed up by a Labour party donor, with sprawling powers. Once the regulator has dealt with the most pressing issues, who knows how it might justify its existence in future. The devil will surely make work for idle hands. My fear is that the football regulator will not behave as a guardian of the sport but will instead look to involve itself more and more in day-to-day club operations. We have come a long way since the dark days of the 1980s—an era that reached its nadir just under 40 years ago with the Heysel disaster, which saw English clubs banned from European competition for five years. It was a period when the best English players sought to ply their trade in Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1. English football is now the envy of the world. I am sure our competitors in Spain, Italy and Germany are watching and would be delighted if we were to regulate ourselves into a less competitive place. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
- Hansard source
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
Order. As hon. Members can see, a number of Members still wish to speak, so the time limit will be reduced to three minutes after the next speaker, Jon Pearce.
- Hansard source
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
From Reading again: Matt Rodda.
- Hansard source
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
It is unusual for me to say this, but, having heard about Southampton earlier, we shall conclude with Portsmouth.
- Hansard source
Football Governance Bill [Lords]
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the almost 235,000 signatories to this petition, including 670 from my constituency of Huntingdon, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The number of signatories to the petition and the speed at which they were collected demonstrate the strength of feeling on the issue. It is just over a year since the previous debates on this topic. At the start of my speech, I must declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research—and, since we are all pitching for our various hounds, as the owner of the best-looking dog. She is the winner of several “best rescue” rosettes—I think that puts that discussion to bed. The use of dogs and other animals in scientific and regulatory procedures has long been a controversial and emotive topic. It is a topic in which I have a closer interest than I may like, and more of an interest than most Members of this House need to. My constituency of Huntingdon has long been ground zero for much of the conversation around this practice. It has two sites involved in pharmaceutical research and animal testing: Labcorp’s pharmaceutical testing facility and Marshal BioResources’s beagle breeding facility, which is known as MBR Acres. As such, I speak on this subject with some first-hand experience of its sensitivity. Only this weekend, there was a large demonstration of several hundred people outside the MBR Acres beagle breeding facility. I visited LabCorp last summer, so I have seen at first hand the lab conditions, the dogs in their pens and how they are looked after. It is very sanitised, as one might expect. I did not witness any of the experiments taking place, but it is a difficult thing to see the dogs held in those areas, knowing what awaits them in the testing process. While this debate is about dogs, they sit within a hierarchy. Pigs are at the bottom, then come dogs, and above them sit primates. It is notable that no one has spoken about the use of primates in testing, but it is worth mentioning because, having visited that facility, I have seen the macaques that are used for testing above dogs in rarer circumstances, and the way that they come over, climb on the fences and look one in the eyes. The similarity between humans and primates makes it even more difficult to look at them than at the dogs. I would like to make clear that I do not support animal testing for human medication—hence my APPG membership—but recognise that it is, at present, still a crucial milestone that regrettably will have a place in the pre-clinical testing process until there has been sufficient advancement in non-animal methods that such practices are no longer required across the board. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of all Members when I say that we would like to see a world in which animal testing for human medication is no longer needed. That is also the view of many that we have spoken to who are involved in the testing. Animal research in the UK is regulated by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under that legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Animals can therefore be used in research only when no alternative methods are available. The Opposition fully support the Act and its full enforcement. The previous Government invested heavily funding for the three Rs: replacement of the use of animals in research where that is not necessary, reduction in the use of animals, and refinement to eliminate or reduce distress to the animals involved. Via the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, or NC3Rs, the previous Government invested £90 million in research and a further £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme for UK and EU-based institutions. Furthermore, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council supports research that aims to develop and apply innovative methods for studying human and animal physiology, including in-silica approaches, organ on a chip, and organoid and other advanced cell culture systems. Last year, the then Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), announced a doubling of annual funding to £20 million. He also announced that the then Government had a plan to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of technologies and methods to reduce reliance on the use of animals in science. I wrote to the Secretary of State last year and asked him whether he would publish this plan. I am keen to hear from the Minister what happened to the plan and when the Government’s version can be expected. As we are all well aware, in its election manifesto last year, the Labour party pledged to phase out animal testing. The Government’s starting position is that it is “not yet possible to replace all animal use due to the complexity of biological systems and regulatory requirements for their use.” We share the Government’s ambition to phase out the use of animals in the testing process, but it is simply not realistic to do so with the immediacy that is often clamoured for by those protesting against the process. The medical industry desperately needs further investment to realise new alternatives. Currently, it does not have the resources to stop animal testing with immediate effect in a way that would ensure the sufficient safety of certain medicines, or that would be compliant with many foreign market standards and regulatory frameworks. Global medicines regulators such as the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration require stringent research standards regarding the safety of a potential new medicine to be met before it is used in human clinical trials. In February, I asked the Government what discussions they had had with the Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic regarding the regulatory approval of non-animal methods. They responded: “The Government is working to understand the international drivers and challenges to integrating non-animal methods into regulatory safety testing. This includes engaging with government scientists and regulators, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Food Standards Agency and Environment Agency, as well as international medicines and chemicals regulators”. Separately, the Minister has informed me that these methods will need to be incorporated into the international regulatory guidelines that the MHRA adheres to. That is it. That is the Government’s entire approach to crossing the enormous hurdle of international recognition. Regardless of how much money we pour into research, without international recognition of specific non-animal methods for each pharmaceutical product tested via those means, international licensing of those products is simply not feasible, so any talk from the Government about phasing out animal testing is just lip service. In September, I asked the Government what steps they were taking to change the policy of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use to allow results from non-animal methods of pharmaceutical testing to be used to support drug safety through pre-clinical trials. They responded: “We are engaging with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) who represent the UK at the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use on how to accelerate the acceptance of data generated in non-animal methods for drug safety decision making.” I am aware that MHRA representatives attended a ministerial roundtable on accelerating the adoption of alternatives to using animals for drug development last year. Given that that was more than six months ago, I am keen to hear from the Minister what progress has been made. We need action from the Government in a number of areas if they are to meet their ambition of animal-free testing. We would welcome clarification from the Minister about what has been done and what will be done through conversations with other regulatory bodies and Governments about phasing out animal testing as a priority, when alternatives are available, in a way that does not hinder trade possibilities. As the Government work on trade deals, it is crucial, where medicines are concerned, that this area is looked at closely. The UK can lead the way. Working with partners on this issue is key for our scientific and medical industry, because even where there may be alternatives to testing on animals, some products would not fit the criteria to sell elsewhere under the current rules. In February, I asked the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms if the Government would publish a timeline for the phasing out of tests via the work of the NC3Rs. He responded: “We are working at pace trying to put together a practicable policy and a strategy which, as I said, we will publish by the end of the year.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 244.] I am aware that the Government have already made clear that they will publish a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods later this year. I do not anticipate that the situation has changed significantly in the 10 weeks since that exchange, but now that we are a third of the way through the year, I would like to hear from the Minister whether any progress has been made. Is a strategy now in place? Furthermore, will the Minister expand on what exact engagement the Department and the Government at large are having with the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities on how to take their commitment forward? The issue of licences for animal testing should also be addressed, although I appreciate that it is not within this Department’s brief. Marshall BioResources in my constituency last received an unannounced inspection from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit in April 2024. Since receiving its establishment licence in October 2017, it has received eight announced and seven unannounced inspections. The outcome of the most recent inspection was that no critical, major or minor findings and no low-level concerns were identified. With that in mind, the Minister has previously informed me that the Government are preparing to conduct an internal review into the duration of project licences for animal research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The original schedule was for the review’s report to be published by the end of 2025. Could the Minister tell me whether the review has started and whether the report will still be published by year end? To conclude, we want to see clear, pragmatic plans that support the Government’s manifesto pledges, and that must include viable alternative testing methods that are safe and that can sell on the international stage.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Order. Will hon. Members please note that interventions and speeches are two very different things?
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Order. Forgive me, I may have misheard, but did you say it was a 42-minute contribution?
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
It was a 50-minute contribution.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Order. The debate is taking place with the Secretary of State, who has the floor.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Order. This is a very interesting riff on education, but can we get back to the immigration point, please?
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Order. I am not sure that the hon. Member highlighting his prowess in running the London marathon is appropriate to the Bill, but I wish him well.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Is it a real point of order?
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
I am not sure if I am thankful for that point of order. The Chair is overseeing the debate. I have listened to it very closely. I appreciate that it is about immigration. I know that the Bill is very thin—it is only two pages long—but it is broad in scope. I will continue to listen very closely to the Secretary of State, and he will ensure that his comments are within scope of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Order. I know the debate is very intense, but “you” means me. No doubt the hon. Member is not critiquing me.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Order. That is twice! “You” refers to the Chair. I think that is the end of that intervention. I call the Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Order. Members should not use “you”. The hon. Member was told off twice earlier for using it, and he came and apologised to the Chair. I would not have mentioned it, were I not being accurate in making clear for the record that he had been inappropriate with his language.
- Hansard source
Business without Debate
Further to the Deputy Speaker’s statement on 28 March, in column 1298 of the Official Report, Mr Speaker has directed that the proceedings entitled the Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill on 14 March should be considered void and this should be reflected in the Journal. That title, and associated text, was substituted in error for the Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill. As the House has been notified, the Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill had not been correctly printed at that time, which is a requirement under Standing Order No. 14(3). The order for Second Reading therefore lapsed at the rising of the House on 13 March. Once the Bill had been printed and made available in the Vote Office, notice could be given appointing the next available Private Members’ Bill Friday for Second Reading and so all subsequent proceedings, including on 28 March and today, are unaffected. Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
- Hansard source
Business without Debate
Well, Mr Chope, that has probably given you all the exercise you need.
- Hansard source
Wickford Town Centre Regeneration
I am grateful to have been given this opportunity to raise a number of important issues that are of considerable concern to my constituents in the town of Wickford, and in particular the future of the old Co-op supermarket site in the centre of the town. I am personally grateful to the Minister for being here on a Friday afternoon to respond to the debate when no doubt he also has constituency demands on his diary, so I thank him. Perhaps I could begin on a sombre note by paying tribute to the late Councillor David Harrison, who passed away only recently. David Harrison had represented Wickford on Basildon borough council for many years and had given decades of his life to public service in the town of Wickford, which he clearly loved. He also served very successfully as the mayor of Basildon borough. He will be much missed by people of all parties, and I pay tribute in the House to his service and offer my condolences as the town’s MP to his widow, Linda, and her wider family at this extremely difficult time. For context, I point out to the Minister that Wickford has been through a rather challenging time in recent years, especially since the covid pandemic. We have seen a number of banks and several other retail outlets close on the high street, which has contributed to a decrease in footfall. I recently visited the Nationwide branch in Wickford to congratulate it on remaining open, and on its wider corporate commitment not to close any high street branch across the country until 2028 at the earliest. I understand that will roll on, year by year. Incidentally, I also visited the Nationwide branch in Rayleigh a little over a week ago for much the same reason and to celebrate it reopening once again on a Thursday to revert to a five-day-a-week service, so well done Nationwide. Nevertheless, we also lost our police station in Wickford several years ago, and that has been boarded up ever since. Basildon borough council originally intended to replace it with flats, but it now has an alternative proposal to redevelop it as a community safety hub. We look forward to further details, including what the opening hours will be. To add to that, Greater Anglia, which operates the train line from Southend through Wickford into Liverpool Street, demolished a large part of Wickford station several years ago to extend the platforms to accommodate the new class 720 trains. I am pleased to report that the 720s have proved considerably more reliable than their rather elderly predecessors. Nevertheless, it has taken Greater Anglia several years to confirm plans to rebuild the station. I personally lobbied Ministers at the Department for Transport, under the previous Conservative Government, to come up with the multimillion-pound funding necessary to rebuild the station and, in a bipartisan spirit, I am pleased to report this afternoon that Greater Anglia has recently signed a contract with Walker Construction. The rebuild of the station will now commence this summer and should be completed by the end of 2026 at the latest, and hopefully a little earlier, weather depending. In addition to the rebuild, which I believe will be very popular with my constituents, there is further good news: McDonald’s has recently acquired the old unoccupied Prezzo restaurant in Wickford High Street and is now refurbishing it to provide a brand new McDonald’s, due to open this summer. I suspect that will also prove popular with my constituents. Crucially, that should increase footfall on the high street and will be welcomed by local traders, even if that provides competition to other restaurants in the town. Moreover, local businesses in the town centre recently voted to form a new business improvement district in order to pool their efforts, in collaboration with the borough and town councils, to help revive economic activity in the town. As the local MP, I attended some of the preliminary meetings in this process, and I wish the newly created BID all the best for the future. My main purpose in this debate is to talk about the economic regeneration of Wickford, but given that Labour-led Basildon borough council released its regulation 18 draft local plan a few months ago, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to point out to the Minister that I am strongly opposed to the council’s proposals to try to cram 27,000 new dwellings into the borough by 2043, including some 4,200 in and around Wickford itself. The local infrastructure in the borough simply cannot accommodate mass house building on this scale. I appreciate that we do need some new houses in the borough—young people cannot be expected to live at home with their parents forever. None the less, we simply do not have the infrastructure, particularly the road infrastructure and medical facilities, to accommodate mass concreting over the green belt on this scale. In particular, there are no firm proposals whatsoever to expand Basildon district general hospital, which is at the heart of the Basildon borough. According to the NHS’s own standard metrics, it works on the basis of 2.4 prospective additional patients per household, which would mean pro rata almost 65,000 potential patients at the hospital, which is massively oversubscribed as it is. According to the hospital trust’s management, even before so-called winter pressures kick in, the hospital is normally running a bed occupancy rate of between 98% and 99%. The borough council’s response has been completely unconvincing, frankly. It simply palmed off all responsibility for plans to expand the hospital on to the integrated commissioning board, which itself is now in the course of a major reorganisation. Having checked personally with the leadership of the current Mid and South Essex ICB, I can report that it has never been consulted by the council on any plans to expand Basildon hospital. Indeed, when the council published a supplementary document to the local plan, specifically regarding healthcare infrastructure, even then there were no clear proposals whatsoever to expand the hospital. I believe that the plan should be found unsound on that one key point alone, so I hope the Minister will understand why I wish to get my concerns firmly on the record. Having done that, I will now turn to an area of great concern for my Wickford constituents: the fate of the old Co-op supermarket site in the centre of the town, just behind the high street. There is a long-running and complicated saga, of which I have given the Minister at least some notice, so rather than try his patience by attempting to go through every detail, I will try to summarise the background. Several years ago, the Co-op closed its supermarket at this site. In addition, some two years ago, Aldi, which operates the other main supermarket in the town, demolished its store in order to build a larger, modernised one. The net effect was that for much of 2023 there was a perfect storm in terms of the lack of supermarket provision in Wickford, other than a small Iceland store on the high street. This meant that my constituents often had to travel some distance to do their weekly shop, a particular challenge for those who are elderly or do not have access to their own car, or both. I am pleased to tell the Minister that I subsequently reopened the newly reconstructed and indeed enlarged Aldi supermarket in November 2023, and it now appears to be doing a brisk trade. Nevertheless, this leaves the outstanding question of what will happen to the old Co-op site, which is currently in a state of poor repair and is boarded up. Given other recent developments in Wickford, which have led to a diminution in car parking spaces across the town, the car park adjacent to the Co-op site now effectively acts as the main car park for the town itself, yet a considerable number of those places are currently unavailable because of the hoardings that surround the dilapidated Co-op site—I can see the Minister nodding, so he clearly follows my argument, for which I am grateful. Several years ago, the Co-op site was acquired by a company called Heriot, a South African-based developer that sought to redevelop a supermarket on the site. Its first attempt was to agree an arrangement with Morrisons that would have led—eventually—to a brand-new supermarket, incorporating an underground car park and up to 137 flats above the store, some up to seven storeys high. I have to tell the Minister that I was never really convinced of the viability of those proposals, especially given the high cost of developing underground car parks post covid, and the plans were generally quite unpopular across the town, too. The plan fell through, partly I think because of some of the financial challenges that Morrisons has been experiencing as a supermarket chain, which are well documented in the press. Heriot then entered into negotiations on an alternative scheme with Asda, which I shall refer to in more detail in a moment. For its part, Basildon borough council, understandably becoming impatient at the lack of a planning application from Heriot, threatened to issue a section 215 notice compelling Heriot to clean up the site and ultimately to demolish the old supermarket, as it was becoming a considerable eyesore—it still is. In response, and after a couple of years of preparation, Heriot finally submitted a formal planning application to Basildon borough council in February 2025, based on a revised scheme for a brand-new supermarket with no underground parking and a reduced number of flats, with three storeys of accommodation above the store as opposed to seven. My understanding is that this planning application is extant and is due to be determined by the borough council’s planning committee, hopefully by the end of May—next month. I know that the Minister will be reluctant to comment on the merits of the planning application, not least because of his quasi-judicial position in the event of a potential appeal. I hope, however, that he will at least be prepared to acknowledge that, after a number of years with a blighted, derelict supermarket, it would certainly be to the advantage of the town if the borough council were minded to pass the application in a timely manner. In short, as he is the Minister for Local Growth, I would suggest to him that if the Government are so committed to growing business, this scheme should appeal to them. That brings me on to the new proposal with Asda. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Asda has been through considerable financial difficulties of its own, following its sale by Walmart, and the company is now loaded with a considerable amount of debt. As a result, its former chief executive Allan Leighton, a man with a rightly strong reputation in the retail industry, has taken over as executive chairman and is attempting to turn the company around—although he is on record as saying that this might take some time. Despite Asda’s reluctance to comment publicly on its negotiations with Heriot, I have to tell the Minister that it is, in effect, an open secret across the whole of Wickford that Asda and Heriot have been working on a new scheme, the design of which is already reflected in the planning application that I have just mentioned. Indeed, I can tell the Minister that, even when I was out canvassing in Wickford nearly a year ago at the general election, multiple constituents raised with me where the Asda scheme had got to. If it drags on much longer, there is a real risk that Asda will suffer serious reputational damage as a company that struggles to make a decision. Specifically, I understand that the proposed scheme has been deferred several times from consideration by the Asda board and indeed was meant to be discussed at an Asda board meeting last week, only to be deferred yet again. I find this extremely disappointing, because—given the background that I have outlined, which I hope the Minister can appreciate—my constituents are now thoroughly fed up with what one might call, to use a military term, the paralysis by analysis that Asda has shown over all of this. I attended Wickford town council’s annual town meeting just last night, where this matter was a topic of considerable discussion among the 40 or so residents present. The general view of the audience was that Asda seemed completely incapable of making a decision either one way or another. As someone who was there said, I can say that it was not exactly Asda’s finest hour. For my own part as the local MP, I must confess that I have found Asda an extremely difficult company to deal with as it is generally very uncommunicative. I understand that one of Mr Leighton’s inherited challenges is poor industrial relations between Asda’s management and the staff in its stores; if it communicates with its staff in the way that it communicates with MPs, I am not surprised. For the record, Asda already has a successful store in my constituency in Rayleigh, which is often very busy, especially at the weekends, and, prior to the 2010 boundary changes, when South Woodham Ferrers was part of my constituency, it also had a very successful store there. I am not against Asda as a company per se, but the way in which it has treated both me as a Member of Parliament and, far more importantly, my constituents leaves a very great deal to be desired. As the Minister can probably tell, I am now completely exasperated by the total inability of Asda to make a decision either one way or another. Accordingly, yesterday I wrote to Allan Leighton, the executive chairman, and have asked for a personal meeting with him in order to try and explain to him some of the background that I have sought to lay out in this Adjournment debate, and then to try to elicit a final decision from him and his company either one way or another. We cannot go on with this endless prevarication by one of the nation’s largest supermarket groups. In truth, I suspect that Mr Leighton had never even heard of Wickford before yesterday; well, he has now. To summarise, I am pleased that Greater Anglia has finally let the contract to rebuild Wickford station, which will commence this summer and conclude by the end of next year, and that McDonald’s is now converting the old Prezzo restaurant to open this summer, which I am sure will materially help to increase footfall on the high street. But we still have the major outstanding issue of what will happen to the old Co-op supermarket site. I very much hope that Labour-led Basildon borough council will agree to pass Heriot’s planning application—ideally next month—not least as Basildon council’s deputy leader, Councillor Adele Brown, told the town council annual meeting last night, while I was there, that it is now intending to support the application. That would represent a major multimillion-pound investment into Wickford and the borough. Finally, given that it is an open secret across the whole of Wickford that Asda has been talking to the developer for over a year now, the time really has come for Asda to make its mind up either one way or another. I very much hope it will, which is why I have asked to meet personally with its executive chairman, Allan Leighton, to try to obtain formal confirmation of this. The time for hesitation has passed; I hope Asda will proceed and that my constituents can have a supermarket in Wickford that is fit for the 21st century.
- Hansard source
Wickford Town Centre Regeneration
On one level, I am loath to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, because he is being so charming and I do not want to spoil the moment. Just to place it on the record, on devolution, I do not quite see it the way that he and the Government do. None the less, he has been very helpful. We have a very active town council in Wickford and we have a very active BID. I will pass on his very kind offer to visit the BID. Perhaps he could come after—hopefully—we have celebrated the news that Asda will go ahead. Is that a fair deal?
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing forward this debate, which is interesting if nothing else. How does the SNP suggest we encourage people to live in Scotland, and particularly rural Scotland, given that anyone in Scotland earning over £28,500 pays more income tax; local government has a £760 billion-odd shortfall, which affects rural communities more, given how money is spent over a larger area; and Scotland has a housing crisis? How do those things attract people?
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
The Secretary of State mentions depopulation in rural areas of Scotland and deskilling. North-east Scotland—as I am sure he is aware, because we have mentioned it more than once in this Chamber—is facing exactly that because of Labour’s policies on the North sea. Skills are being driven abroad at an unimaginable rate compared with the rest of the UK. We are depopulating and deskilling the north-east of Scotland because of Labour’s North sea oil and gas policies. Will he reflect on that or at least accept that that is the impact Labour is having on north-east Scotland?
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I must thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for introducing it. It is a shame that only six Scottish Labour MPs have seen fit to turn up to the debate, given their majority in representing Scottish constituencies, but I will move on to the Scottish Labour position on the Bill in due course. Some 40% of Scottish Conservative MPs have turned up to this today, in comparison with only 16% of Scottish Labour MPs, which I would say is a roaring success. I must start from first principles. Devolution of immigration and asylum is a non-starter. It is, frankly, an absurd and unworkable idea, and the Conservative party is resolutely opposed to it. If we were in government, we would have the courage of our convictions and vote against the Bill, but the weak approach of the Labour party to this Bill, in avoiding a vote and trying to talk it out, should shame the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Government and the Scottish Labour party. Whatever our view of the proposal, on this Bill Members should have a vote—Members should be forced to say what their position actually is. We all know why there is not going to be a vote today: it is because the branch office in Edinburgh might like certain elements of the Bill, but London Labour says no—’twas always thus. I am proud to say that the Conservative party opposes the Bill, but the Labour party—the Scottish Labour party—is scared to do anything that might damage its SNP-lite approach to politics and Scotland. It is supine in opposition in Holyrood and absent from the field in government. Labour should have the courage of its convictions to vote against the Bill today, despite how uncomfortable it might make certain Government Members. Turning to the Bill, the idea that immigration and asylum matters should be devolved to Scotland simply should not be countenanced.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Michael Gove, soon to be Lord Gove of Torry, is answerable for his own opinions on whether immigration powers should be devolved to Scotland. I would not be in any way surprised if his views on that issue have changed, as indeed have his views on certain other issues over the years. First, we should not enable regional immigration policies within the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is absolutely no case for a special immigration policy for Scotland outwith the United Kingdom’s legislative framework. Thirdly, the Scottish Government under the SNP over the past 18 years have demonstrated an unparalleled and unprecedented level of incompetence, which ought to preclude consideration of granting greater powers over, frankly, anything. We all know that there is such a thing as Scottish exceptionalism. The only exceptionalism that the Scottish Government have demonstrated is an exceptional reverse Midas touch to almost every single area over which they have responsibility, whether it is education, health or transport infrastructure. I could go on.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
If the hon. Gentleman has some patience, I will come to that. I do not intend to detain the House for quite as long as he did in giving his remarks, but I will come to what the Scottish Conservatives propose to address the demographic challenge that we face north of the border. There is no case for devolving immigration to Scotland. Doing so would be unproductive at best, and given the SNP’s record in Holyrood, it would likely be disastrous. The devolution of immigration policy to Scotland would be incoherent within a United Kingdom and, indeed, wholly impractical. We have heard arguments today that Scotland is more reliant on immigration than elsewhere in the UK. In many sectors, such as healthcare, adult social care, construction and agriculture, the UK benefits from—or relies too heavily upon, some might argue—imported labour. The Migration Advisory Committee, however, has found that labour market needs are similar across the UK and that there is no case for Scottish exceptionalism in this regard or for a Scotland-specific immigration system. Let us talk about attracting skilled labour to Scotland. Let us start by looking at one of Scotland’s most successful industries: oil and gas. That is an industry we should be championing. We should be championing the world-class workforce, the leading supply chain, and the opportunities for growth, for good, well-paid jobs and for prosperity. I represent a constituency in a region that is seeing a decline in the number of people living and working there. That is a direct result of years of hostile rhetoric towards this energy industry from the Scottish National party, or is it not still the policy of the SNP to have a presumption against oil and gas? It was the SNP that was in coalition with the extremist Scottish Green party. With this Labour Government, it looks like that party might be getting its way, with a refusal to grant new licences and cuts to investment allowances signalling that the North sea is closed for business. That is driving industry and people away, and opportunities for well-paid jobs are drying up. If the Scottish National party are serious about attracting a talented and productive workforce to Scotland, it should start by rethinking its policies towards our home-grown energy industry and start backing Scottish workers and Scottish businesses. A Scottish Government publication from last year admits that they “need an immigration system that supports our higher education sector”. Goodness me! Under the SNP, universities, students and staff have not been supported, but have been utterly hung out to dry. Dundee University is in dire financial straits, shedding 600 jobs to make emergency savings. My former university, Aberdeen, has resorted to a hiring freeze in an attempt to fill a £15 million shortfall. The University of Edinburgh echoes those warnings, saying that it needs to reduce costs by £140 million.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
Goodness me—talk about taking responsibility! It was only a few weeks ago that the SNP’s Education Minister refused to take any responsibility for the situation facing higher education in Scotland and claimed that there is no direct link with the failed funding model on which Scottish universities rely north of the border. That model has made them far too reliant on foreign students paying exorbitant fees to keep their doors open, rather than being funded properly from the Scottish Government’s own budget. SNP Members have failed to mention that. When they talk about immigration in the context of higher education, they always fail to mention that the funding model designed by the Scottish National party has obliged our higher education institutions to be so reliant on stratospheric fees to keep the doors open and keep research going. No contrition and no responsibility—that is the Scottish National party.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
I am very happy to talk about our record on higher education and compare it with the Scottish National party’s. It is a fact that someone from a deprived background in England is more likely to get into university than someone from a similar background in Scotland. That is a record of which the Scottish National party should be ashamed. There are fewer opportunities for Scottish students to get into world-leading Scottish higher education institutions than before the Scottish National party came into office. The SNP cannot admit that its funding model has failed, although the University and College Union in Scotland has said so and has repeatedly called on the Scottish Government to address the decline in Scottish university funding. If the hon. Gentleman acknowledges and apologises for the Scottish Government’s failures, I might then engage in a debate about whether we should look at an immigration system that does more for Scottish higher education.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are far better when we work together on these islands than when we drive each other apart. The Scottish National party’s model for higher education in Scotland has been nothing short of a failure. Disadvantaged teenagers are less likely to get into university in Scotland than their peers south of the border. The Scottish National party is failing the least well-off in society, blocking social mobility through the transformative power of education.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
It ill behoves me to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I was not talking down Scotland; I was talking down the Scottish National party’s record. I know the SNP thinks that it is Scotland and that Scotland is the SNP, but it most certainly is not. As for setting out a long litany of failures, I have only just started, believe you me—but as this debate must conclude at 2.30 pm, we simply do not have time to go through the list of failures of the Scottish National party in government over the past 18 years. The people of Scotland will have the chance to demonstrate at the polls next year whether they have confidence in the Scottish National party to continue in government. That is the only poll that matters, and we will see what happens in May 2026. Let us address the utter absurdity of the Scottish Government’s proposed additional Scottish graduate visa, which would allow graduates four unsponsored years. It is even possible that those on the four-year graduate visa would qualify for permanent residence. Members have also raised the issue of Scotland’s declining birth rate. Proposing immigration as a quick fix for a declining population is wrong-headed and short-sighted. High immigration to solve low birth rates and an ageing population is a pyramid-scheme response. Working-age immigrants initially slow the growth of the age dependency ratio; however, they will in turn age and perpetuate the same crisis. Nations across the developed world face the myriad issues that an ageing population presents. The Scottish National party should be more focused on supporting working families and improving the economic outlook and prosperity, rather than proposing unfettered immigration. It might take the radical approach proposed by the Scottish Conservative party of making Scotland the lowest-taxed, rather than the highest-taxed, part of our United Kingdom and see what that does to attract people north of the border.
- Hansard source
Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill
I am always delighted to give way to my constituency neighbour.