House of Commons
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I remind Members that the private Member’s Bills ballot book is open today in the No Lobby until 6pm, at which point it will be taken to the Public Bill Office and remain open for signatures until the rise of the House. The ballot draw will be held at 9 am tomorrow in Committee Room 8.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
This is, of course, my first Scottish questions on this side of the House, and I am delighted to be joined by so many colleagues from Scotland behind me. I welcome back returning Members from all parties and thank those who have not returned for all their hard work on behalf of their constituents. I thank the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir Alister Jack, for his work representing Scotland in Whitehall and the UK Government in Scotland. I also thank all the staff in the Scotland Office for making us so welcome. Their professionalism is unsurpassed.
I am very pleased that we were recently able to welcome 19 female Afghan medical students to Scotland so that they can continue their studies. The work to bring them here was initiated by Sir Alister Jack, and their safe arrival in the UK is a credit to our commitment to helping them.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on his new position. I am sure he will be diligent in holding me to account, and I hope that I was diligent in holding him to account.
I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating Scotland’s Olympians and Paralympians, who have achieved so much sporting success this summer.
This Government will introduce a new industrial strategy to drive long-term, sustainable growth by securing investment in crucial sectors and industries in all parts of Scotland and the UK, which involves working in close partnership with the Scottish Government. That will support our national mission to have the highest sustained growth in the G7.
Martin Rhodes
An industrial strategy that embraces the jobs of the future must involve our higher education institutions, including the three world-class universities in Glasgow. What are the Government doing to ensure that that is the case?
Ian Murray
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his wonderful victory in Glasgow North. Scotland’s 19 world-class higher education institutions are an essential part of our economy, culture and global reputation, and they are paramount to the successful delivery of our missions. We punch well above our weight in Scotland, which is something that we need to protect and nurture. By the end of next week, I will have met the principals of all of Scotland’s universities. I want to deepen and strengthen those relationships, and I believe that the knowledge and expertise of those institutions will be crucial to delivering a new industrial strategy and the goals of this new Government.
Frank McNally
Coatbridge and Bellshill has a rich history of heavy industry, but following years of empty rhetoric and empty soundbites from the previous UK Government and the current Scottish Government, there has been a failure to honour the legacy of industry across Scotland and deliver a long-term, sustainable and coherent strategy. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that industrial jobs in Scotland are as much a part of its future as they are of its history?
Ian Murray
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on winning Coatbridge and Bellshill. Scotland and its world-class industrial workforce will play a driving role in our ambition to become a green energy powerhouse in this country. For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Scottish Government and I met representatives of Petroineos earlier this week to discuss what support can be provided to ensure a sustainable future for the industrial clusters in the wider Falkirk and Grangemouth region, which is crucial to the entirety of Scotland and the UK. That includes our commitment to fund Project Willow with the Scottish Government.
Gregor Poynton
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. A UK-wide industrial strategy that supports jobs in Scotland is incredibly vital. However, this week we have heard the concerning news that the Mitsubishi Electric plant in my constituency is looking to reduce its workforce by 440 from its current complement of 1,600. This is a highly skilled workforce creating world-leading products such as air source heat pumps and air conditioning units, which are vital as we look to decarbonise our economy. Through no fault of its own, however, Mitsubishi Electric has seen its order book fall away due to short-term economic pressures. May I ask the Secretary of State to meet the management, workers and me to see what the UK Government can do to support—
Ian Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am really sorry to hear of the difficulties facing Mitsubishi Electric’s workforce, and of the uncertainty those workers face during this difficult time. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his efforts to support the workers in his constituency, and we have talked about this issue already. I will commit as a matter of priority to a meeting with the company and its workforce in the coming weeks.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new position and congratulate him on his appointment to what I can tell him is a splendid job to hold in government. On an industrial strategy, will he focus his ministerial colleagues’ minds on the potential development of tidal stream generation? That provides an enormous opportunity for our manufacturing sector to create a supply chain that is based here in the United Kingdom, rather than having to bring capacity from overseas.
Ian Murray
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his role when he was in the Scotland Office. We hope to emulate much of the work that he did. I have met the European Marine Energy Centre and those involved with tidal resources in his constituency. This is critically important to our net zero ambitions and in getting to clean power by 2030. I am due to meet them when I visit his constituency in the coming weeks, and I will make sure that this is top of the agenda.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and welcome him to his place. I associate myself with his earlier remarks, particularly about Scotland’s Olympians and Paralympians. I was delighted to hear the recognition in his first answer of the role that our universities will play in a new industrial strategy, which is going to be vital in Scotland, particularly in the light of the recent admissions about the mess that the Scottish National party has made of our economy in Scotland. That is why I was baffled to see the UK Government cutting £800 million from a supercomputer project at the University of Edinburgh that has the potential to support research on drug discovery, climate change and advanced engineering. What discussions did the Secretary of State have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact of that?
Ian Murray
As the hon. Lady will know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did a full audit of Government spending in the first weekend that she was in office, and found a £22 billion black hole. The exascale computer that she talks about was announced by two previous Prime Ministers and two previous Chancellors, and indeed was in the Budget in the early part of this year, but no money was allocated and therefore the project has been paused, pending both the Budget on 30 October and the spending review next year.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I am proud to be part of a UK Government that will oversee the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. We have set out the new deal for working people and will write it into law within our first 100 days. Over 75 reforms will deliver on a core part of our growth mission to raise living standards, and up to 7,800 workers across Ayrshire stand to benefit from Labour’s plans to make work pay.
Elaine Stewart
In addition to this Government’s action on the new deal for working people, we should ensure that there is a fair deal for those who powered our country in the past. From my previous work with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, I know the vital difference that that extra support makes to those communities and their families. Can the Secretary of State give an update on the proposals to end the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme before it is too late?
Kirsty McNeill
Mineworkers from my own constituency of Midlothian, from my hon. Friend’s constituency and from across our coalfields powered this country, so I am delighted that our Labour manifesto committed to ending the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme by conducting a review of the unfair surplus arrangements and of transferring the investment reserve fund back to members. I would be delighted to write to my hon. Friend and to other Members representing coalfield seats with a further update in due course.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. He will know that the Scottish Government have their own tax-raising powers. He will remember criticising the Scottish Government for not using them, then criticising the Scottish Government when we did use them. Nevertheless, this generates £1.5 billion of extra revenue in Scotland, and taxing those who earn more slightly more allows us to tax those who earn slightly less even less than is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. What advice would he give the Chancellor to mirror those efforts in Scotland to have a more progressive and fair tax system for our workers?
Kirsty McNeill
The Member will be aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said this morning that the tax policies of the Scottish Government have actually cost Scotland money rather than raised it. He will know, too, that this Government have had to undertake a comprehensive audit of spending to make sure that we can clear up the mess that we have inherited. The £22 billion black hole is real, and the Treasury reserves have been spent more than three times over. He will be aware that the focus of the Chancellor is on making sure that we fix the foundations and get the economy back on track.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
This Government are committed to delivering economic growth in all parts of the country and we are working closely with local partners and the Scottish Government on the Borderlands growth deal. Together, we are ensuring that it delivers the uplift in economic benefits set out in the deal.
David Mundell
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment, and I particularly congratulate the Secretary of State on his. Being on your own in this House is a tough gig, and he exercised it in exemplary fashion over seven years, but—as I found—having new colleagues brings a whole new set of challenges of its own.
Will the hon. Lady ensure that the mountain bike centre at the Caerlee mill in Innerleithen is prioritised? There has been a suggestion that the project will not now go ahead in that location. It is vital that we have that centre and it is vital that the mill is refurbished.
Kirsty McNeill
The UK Government have pledged £19 million for the mountain bike innovation centre project, as part of the Borderlands growth deal. My officials are working closely with all local partners, including Scottish Borders council, to progress this project. I expect to provide an update on the development of the project shortly.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on winning Glasgow East. The people of Scotland want their two Governments to spend more time fighting for them than fighting each other, which is why resetting the relationship has been a priority for this Government and, indeed, the Prime Minister. I have had numerous productive meetings with Scottish Government Ministers, including the Deputy First Minister. We have had 17 days of visits across Scotland, and seven members of the Cabinet have already visited. There have been dozens of calls between Secretaries of State and Cabinet Secretaries. I look forward to working with the Scottish Government to deliver our shared priorities for the people of Scotland.
John Grady
Scotland’s official economic forecaster, the Scottish Fiscal Commission, has said of the Scottish Budget that
“much of the pressure comes from the Scottish Government’s own decisions.”
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government must accept responsibility for the catastrophic state of Scotland’s public finances?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend is right; the Scottish Fiscal Commission did say that. While this new Government are cleaning up the mess of the previous Conservative Government, the SNP seems to be cleaning up its own mess. In 2023, Audit Scotland said:
“The Scottish Government’s projections suggest that it cannot afford to pay for public services in their current form.”
As we have heard, the IFS said this morning that SNP decisions have reduced the tax take rather than increase it. This is about treating taxpayers’ money with respect and being honest about the tough choices we face. An honest assessment of the SNP Government’s Budget is that these problems have been stored up for years. Tough decisions have been kicked into the long grass, and money has been spent recklessly. It is a problem of the SNP’s own making, and the Scottish people will suffer as the SNP tries to clear it up.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I, too, start by congratulating both Ministers on their appointment to the Scotland Office. I loved my time at the Scotland Office, and I know they will be very well supported by the Department’s excellent team of officials, some of whom are in the Box today.
Labour plans to end the winter fuel payment, taking money away from elderly people who have worked all their days. Age Scotland has said:
“At minimum, a quarter of a million pensioners in Scotland on the lowest incomes or living in fuel poverty will no longer receive this vital financial support over the winter months, while hundreds of thousands more on modest incomes are going to struggle”.
Labour has cut the winter fuel payment across the UK, and the SNP is doing Labour’s dirty work in Scotland. What does the Minister have to say to the 250,000 elderly Scots who are in poverty and struggling with the decisions of Labour and the SNP?
Ian Murray
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new post.
During the inheritance statement a few weeks ago, the Chancellor set out how the current Government are fixing the foundations and trying to clear up the dreadful legacy left by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. The Chancellor did not want or expect to make these decisions, but they had to be made to try to get the finances in balance and to make sure that we can fix the foundations to deliver on our manifesto. That is the legacy of the previous Government and, as I said in my previous answer, the SNP has made a mess of the public finances over the last 17 years. As we saw in the Scottish Parliament yesterday, the SNP has one hell of a mess to clear up, and it is Scottish pensioners and the Scottish people who will pay the price.
John Lamont
Labour is taking a leaf from the SNP playbook by refusing to take responsibility for its own actions. This is happening because of choices made by this Labour Government that have been passed on by the SNP in Edinburgh. Labour’s election slogan was all about change and, under this Labour Government, pensioners do not seem to have any change to spare. A woman called Lesley told Age Scotland that the winter fuel payment
“is literally a life saver for us.”
Another person, Brian, told Age Scotland:
“I would freeze without it, or go hungry.”
Is this the change that Labour meant—taking money away from struggling pensioners?
Ian Murray
There seems to be no recognition or apology from the shadow Secretary of State for the legacy his party has left this Government to try to clear up. We knew about the massive overspend in public services by the previous Government, and the audit the Chancellor did in her first weekend in office revealed the £22 billion black hole. These things have to be fixed. We did not expect or want to make such tough decisions, but we have had to make them to fix the foundations of our economy.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
May I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State? I know it has not always been easy and sometimes it has been a lonely path, so I offer my personal congratulations to him on his appointment and to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill) on taking her place.
I will take the Secretary of State at face value on improving the relationship between the Scottish and UK Governments, but he will be aware of the devastating consequences of the cuts in the winter fuel payment for pensioners in both our constituencies and across Scotland. In order to work better with the Scottish Government, will he do better than giving them just 90 minutes’ notice next time?
Ian Murray
I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place, having won the election for the new constituency of Arbroath and Broughty Ferry. He should look at what the Finance Secretary said in the Scottish Parliament yesterday: she announced half a billion pounds of cuts, including £120 million in health services and £20 million in mental health services, and she has sold the family inheritance by using the ScotWind money to plug the additional funding gaps in the budget. Audit Scotland and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have been clear that this is a problem of the Scottish Government’s own making, so if they want to reset the relationship, they can start by taking responsibility for their own actions.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
I am committed to working with the Scottish Government and have already met the Deputy First Minister four times in eight weeks. Resetting the relationship between Scotland’s two Governments is crucial to driving economic growth. Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in Glasgow and met the First Minister. The Prime Minister has made resetting the relationship a key part of his new way of working in government. He has met with the First Minister to have those discussions and with members of the business community to discuss growing the Scottish economy. It is the choice of all of us to grow the Scottish economy and something we all need to do together.
Stephen Gethins
The Secretary of State will be aware that macroeconomic policy sits here in Westminster and that decisions taken here have a huge impact. We have worked on this issue before, so does he agree with the SNP that being outside the customs union and the single market is bad for growth in the Scottish economy, or does he agree with the Conservatives and their Reform party colleagues that it has been good for the Scottish economy?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is taking no responsibility for the decisions that his party makes in the Scottish Government. We saw that yesterday with them plugging the hole in their own public finances. The IFS has been clear that the decisions the Scottish Government have made have taken the tax take down in Scotland, despite being it being the highest taxed part of the country. If we are to reset this relationship, they have to start off by taking accountability and responsibility for their own decisions.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Sport has played an essential role in economic growth in Scotland. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the legacy of Sir Andy Murray is recognised in Scotland?
Ian Murray
I would like to announce to the House that Andy Murray and I are not related, despite the fact that we share the same physique [Laughter.] I assure the House that the Scotland Office and this Government will do all we can to ensure that the wonderful legacy of one of Britain’s best sportspeople of all time is maintained.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
Scotland is at the forefront of this Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030. We will headquarter Great British Energy, a new publicly owned clean energy company, capitalised with £8.3 billion, in Scotland. That will help create thousands of jobs, and deliver energy security and lower prices permanently for consumers. Just this week, the sixth allocation for the contracts for difference scheme was announced, with over 130 renewable projects awarded contracts and 20% of those projects based in Scotland.
Torcuil Crichton
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. We watched him for many lonely years as he held the fort on his own. He was always outnumbered, but never outgunned. Will he now use the full firepower of the Scotland Office to convince Cabinet colleagues and industry players of the vital role and potential of the Arnish fabrication yard in Stornoway and its sister yard in Methil, both of which are coming up for sale as part of the going to market of Harland & Wolff? Will he assure workers at the Arnish yard and at Stornoway port that they will play a big role in the renewables future and in GB Energy?
Ian Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and congratulate him on winning the Western Isles. He is Mr Western Isles, and he will be a champion for those islands.
The Government will continue to engage with Harland & Wolff, local MPs and the Scottish Government to monitor the situation and support a resolution that provides long-term certainty for the yards and workforces across the whole UK, with all four yards across the UK being treated as one. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), recently visited the Arnish yard. I have visited the Methil yard twice—once before the election and once during the election—and I have regular meetings with the Deputy First Minister on this issue and hope to meet her again in the coming weeks. We will do all we can to protect these yards.
Gordon McKee
Having spent many years working for my right hon. Friend when he was on the Opposition Benches, may I welcome him to his position as Secretary of State for Scotland? The creation of GB Energy will support 50,000 new jobs across Scotland. It will deliver lower household bills and help us meet our net zero obligations. Given that Glasgow already has a fantastic renewables industry, may I ask what work he has done with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that GB Energy supports jobs in Glasgow?
Ian Murray
I congratulate my hon. Friend on winning his seat in Glasgow South. His question is much better than any that he ever wrote for me.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is due to make an announcement on the location of GB Energy very soon. I regret that, in the interim, I can say no more than that, although I am sure that my hon. Friend’s words of encouragement in respect of Glasgow will not have escaped the attention of my Cabinet colleagues. I can announce exclusively to the House today, Mr Speaker, that GB Energy will be headquartered in Scotland.
Richard Baker
My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have been working closely with Unite, GMB and local management at the Methil yard in my constituency during the restructuring process at Harland & Wolff. Does he agree that 200 skilled workers at Methil and those at Arnish have a vital contribution to make to our ambitions to grow our renewable sector, and also that all stakeholders have a vital role in securing the long-term future of these yards?
Ian Murray
I congratulate my hon. Friend on winning Glenrothes and Mid Fife. I acknowledge his efforts, and those of many hon. Friends in the House and of people in the local area, advocating for the Methil fabrication yard. The yard, along with many others like it, will have a key role in fulfilling our ambition for Scotland and the UK to become a green energy powerhouse. In addition to GB Energy, there is the national wealth fund, which will help unlock further investment opportunities for ports and heavy industry, and manufacturing companies will have a crucial role to play in creating jobs in our transition to net zero. I have been to the Methil plant twice. It has a world-class workforce, and I can assure them that we will do everything we possibly can to make sure that they have a bright future.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and thank him for his generous words about the work of Sir Alister Jack, who was previously in that role. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my consternation this morning that two sanctioned Russian oligarchs now have a share in Harbour Energy, our largest producer of North sea oil and gas? That seems incredible at this time, not least because the company that they are using to have this stake—LetterOne—was forced to divest itself of a broadband company because it was a threat to national security. Can we look again at this decision?
Ian Murray
May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and congratulate him on winning his seat? The Foreign Secretary is sitting two seats along from me, and I am sure that he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure that the issue is a concern to everyone in the House, and we will make sure that a written response is given to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Rosebank oilfield will provide more than £6 billion of investment in UK-based businesses. The Jackdaw oilfield will cater for the energy needs of 1.4 million UK households. This Labour Government are jeopardising all that investment, energy and jobs by dropping the UK Government’s opposition to the judicial review, which aims to block these vital energy projects. Can the Secretary of State seriously tell the 90,000 people whose jobs rely on oil and gas in Scotland that the future of this crucial industry is secure under Labour, when it is his Government’s policy to oppose all new developments?
Ian Murray
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question, but he should stop scaremongering, given the 90,000-strong workforce in the North sea. Oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. The Finch decision, to which he refers, was something that this Government had to consider very carefully. The Secretary of State has started a consultation on consenting, which will affect Jackdaw and, indeed, Rosebank, and that should conclude within the next six months.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
We will strengthen the Migration Advisory Committee, and establish a framework for joint working with skills bodies across the UK, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Department for Work and Pensions. The needs of our economy are different across the regions and nations, and different sectors have different needs. Given that skills policy and employment support are devolved, we will work with the Scottish Government when designing workforce plans for different sectors. This will ensure that our migration and skills policies work for every part of the UK.
Brendan O'Hara
The tourism and hospitality sectors right across my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency are desperate for people to come and work, but because of Brexit and the end of freedom of movement, we have the jobs but we do not have the people. The Government know that Scotland needs people, so will the Government reaffirm Jackie Baillie’s commitment—her assurance to voters—and commit to facilitating the creation of a Scottish visa?
Kirsty McNeill
We are committed to ensuring that there is effective Scottish representation on the Migration Advisory Committee, and I look forward to working with the Home Office and engaging with sectors on ensuring that immigration works for all parts of the UK.
Kirsty Blackman
The skilled worker salary threshold and the skills list are simply not working. Will the Minister ensure that the skilled occupation list is fit for purpose in Scotland, and that it works for our energy transition?
Kirsty McNeill
Fixing the foundations of our economy is the key to long-term prosperity. That includes future-proofing the economy for all, whether that is long-established families or new arrivals. The Chancellor will set out plans to fix the foundations in the Budget on 30 October.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I know the whole House will want to congratulate our Team GB Olympic and Paralympic athletes and support staff for their outstanding achievements so far.
Yesterday’s incident in the channel was shocking and deeply tragic, and our thoughts are with all those who have lost their life, and their families. We must have a renewed determination to end this.
The chair of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, has today published the inquiry’s phase 2 report. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the bereaved and the survivors of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and the residents in the immediate community. I will make a statement shortly after PMQs today.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later.
Bill Esterson
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the loss of life in the channel, and about Grenfell.
The latest suicide figures are a sobering reminder of the misery caused by mental ill health. Maghull Health Park in my constituency is a centre of excellence, with high, medium and low-security hospitals on the same site. The staff do an amazing job, but demand has gone through the roof, especially since the pandemic. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is essential that we give mental and physical healthcare the same level of priority in this country?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising this critical issue. So many are affected by the tragedy of suicide. I am pleased to hear about the work that he refers to, but 1 million people are not getting the mental health support that they need. That is why we will recruit 8,500 mental health workers to treat adults and children, and bring forward legislation to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983—an Act that I think is well overdue for modernisation.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the Grenfell community. We will rightly discuss that important issue shortly after Prime Minister’s questions. I also join him in congratulating our record-breaking Olympians and Paralympians on everything that they have achieved. Lastly, I pay tribute to the hard work, bravery and dedication of our police. This summer, in challenging circumstances, they served our communities commendably and kept us all safe.
Government is about making choices, and the new Prime Minister has made a choice: he has chosen to take the winter fuel allowance away from low-income pensioners and give that money to certain unionised workforces in inflation-busting pay rises. Could I ask the Prime Minister, why did he choose train drivers over Britain’s vulnerable pensioners?
The Prime Minister
This Government were elected to clear up the mess left by the Conservative party, and to bring about the change that the country desperately needs. Our first job was to audit the books, and what we found was a £22 billion black hole. It is no good their complaining. Richard Hughes, the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, was very clear: he described it as
“one of the largest year-ahead overspends against…forecasts outside of the pandemic”.
Those are his words. We have had to take tough decisions to stabilise the economy and repair the damage, including targeting winter fuel payments while protecting pensioners. Some 800,000 pensioners are not taking up pension credit, and we intend to turn that around. We will align housing benefit and pension credit—something the previous Government deferred year after year—and, because of our commitment to the triple lock, pensions are projected to increase by over £1,000 in the next five years.
Rishi Sunak
The Prime Minister also inherited inflation back at target, interest rates being cut, low unemployment and, indeed, the fastest-growing economy in the G7. But that is not the point, because the Prime Minister now has to start taking responsibility for his own decisions. If, as he says, the public finances are a priority, it was his decision, and his alone, to award a train driver on £65,000 a pay rise of almost £10,000, and it was also his decision that a pensioner living on just £13,000 will have their winter fuel allowance removed. Can the Prime Minister explain to Britain’s low-income pensioners why he has taken money away from them while at the same time giving more money to highly paid train drivers?
The Prime Minister
We spent the whole election with the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell the country that everything was fine, and this is the result the Conservatives got: a massive Labour mandate to change the country. If he carries on pretending everything is fine for ordinary people across the country, his party will be in opposition for a very long time. I remind him that we inherited absolute chaos from the Conservatives. We lost an average of 3 million working days a year to strikes under his watch. You cannot fix the economy if the trains do not work, and you cannot fix the economy if the NHS is not working.
When it comes to winter fuel payments, the Conservatives are having a competition, as I understand. They will be voting later on today. From the shadow housing Minister, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), we found this—she is the favourite, I think, and some Conservative Members will probably be voting for her this afternoon. She said:
“I have people in my constituency telling me that they don’t need the winter fuel payments…Why do we not have a more sophisticated mechanism for means-testing?”.
She is the favourite, I think, in the contest the Conservatives are having.
Rishi Sunak
The Prime Minister talked about the public finances. The UK’s public finances are more robust than those of almost any other major advanced economy. Here we have it: he inherited a lower deficit than France, America, Italy—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. When I point at someone to be quiet, I mean it. I do not need a reaction back like that.
Rishi Sunak
The UK currently has a lower deficit than France, America, Italy and Japan; it has the second-lowest debt in the entire G7. The Prime Minister opposed every difficult decision that we took to deliver that, so I certainly am not going to take any lectures from him on that score. He talked about protecting ordinary people; last year, under the Conservative Government, a low-income pensioner with just £13,000 received not only the winter fuel payment, but hundreds of pounds of additional cost of living support, both of which he has now scrapped. Age UK has said that cutting the winter fuel allowance is “the wrong policy”, and only this morning we have learned that the vast majority of the poorest pensioners—pensioners in poverty—will see that vital support removed. Can the Prime Minister tell the House very specifically, and the pensioners who are watching, how much less support a pensioner on £13,000 will receive this winter?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about tough decisions. It is tough to inherit a £22 billion black hole, which the OBR did not—[Interruption.] That is the inheritance; that is what the Conservatives left. Back when they were in government, they would pretend that it was not there. They would have walked past it and put it in the long grass. We are not going to do that, because we were elected to change this country for the better and stabilise our economy. No Prime Minister wants to do what we have to do in relation to the winter fuel allowance, but we have to take the tough decision to stabilise our economy to ensure that we can grow it for the future. As I have said, we are working hard on pension credit. We are aligning it with housing benefit, which they did not do for years, and over five years it has a projected increase of up to £1,000 for those on pensions—tough decisions that they ducked.
Rishi Sunak
The Government do not have to choose to take money off low-income pensioners in order to give it to highly paid train drivers. That is a choice that the Prime Minister has made, and it will be clear to any pensioners watching that he simply cannot explain why he has made that choice.
Turning to another important issue, the Government have suspended 30 of the UK’s 350 arms export licences to Israel. It is a decision that the Chief Rabbi says “beggars belief” and will “encourage our shared enemies”. Can the Prime Minister therefore explain how his decision will help to secure the release of the 101 hostages still being held by Hamas?
The Prime Minister
May I start by saying that I think the whole House will be shocked by the horrific killing of six hostages in the last few days? I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that. The remaining hostages must be released, and we need a ceasefire to ensure that that can happen, that desperately needed aid can get into the region, and that we can begin the path to a two-state solution.
The right hon. Gentleman asks how we arrived at this decision. He knows very well, because the legal framework is clear. The latest guidance was issued in 2021, under his Government, and that means that licences have to be kept under review, as they were by his Government. I think he probably knows the advice that was given to his Government; he understands the framework. We have carried out the review in the same way and come to a clear legal conclusion, and shared that conclusion and assessment with Parliament.
We will, of course, continue to stand by Israel’s right to self-defence, but it is important that we are a country committed to the international rule of law. That gives us the strength of argument in discussion with our allies on important issues. This is a difficult issue—I recognise that—but it is a legal decision, not a policy decision. The Leader of the Opposition knows the framework—[Interruption.] The Conservatives shout, but they issued the guidance and they know what the test is. That test has been assessed. We have come to a conclusion, and we have put that before the House for it to consider.
Rishi Sunak
I appreciate the Prime Minister’s answer, but he will know that decisions like this also have important and broader geopolitical implications. He mentioned allies. It is essential that we maintain transatlantic unity in the face of terrorist threats and avoid any perception of splits between our two nations. Can he therefore update the House, or tell it what engagement he had with the United States prior to taking this significant decision?
The Prime Minister
I acknowledge the importance of working with our allies on all issues, as we have been doing, as I was able to make very clear at the NATO summit that I attended in the early summer. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman and the House would expect, we have talked this through with our allies. They understand; they have a different legal system. That is the point they made. [Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary chunters. This is a serious issue and it requires serious consideration. The Leader of the Opposition knows the legal framework very well. He also knows that applying the framework—the facts of that framework—and arriving at a decision does not permit me to simply say, “I am not going to implement the legal decision or conclusion that has been reached.” I do not think he is really inviting me to do that.
Rishi Sunak
These decisions have not only geopolitical consequences but emotional ones. The Prime Minister took that action on the very same day as the funerals of Israeli hostages murdered by Hamas—something that the Board of Deputies of British Jews described as
“a terrible, terrible message to be sending”.
I hope the Prime Minister understands the hurt that has been caused. Will he take this opportunity to reassure Israel and the Jewish community that the United Kingdom and this House stand behind Israel and its right to self-defence?
The Prime Minister
Let me be very clear, as I have said before and I say again: we recognise and support Israel’s right of self-defence, and we have taken action in support of that right of self-defence. I have made that repeatedly clear in all my engagements with Israel, across the region and with all our allies; I stand by that.
In relation to licences, this is not an Israel issue; it is the framework for all licences that must be kept under review. It is the same test for all licences, as the Prime Minister knows, and we have applied the law to the facts and come to a legal conclusion. I do not think the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is really inviting me to put that to one side. This is a serious issue; we either comply with international law or we do not. We have strength in our arguments only because we comply with international law. I appreciate that the Conservative party did not think that international law mattered, and that is why we got into the pickle that we did.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Unlike the Conservative party, we will not waste money on gimmicks. That is why, within days, we ended the Rwanda scheme and announced the launch of the border security force, and we have been preparing legislation to introduce counter-terrorism powers to tackle gangs. In the first two months, we have removed on planes more than 400 people who had no right to be here. Compare that with the four volunteers sent to Rwanda, which cost £700 million. This is a Government of service, not a Government of gimmicks.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I echo the Prime Minister’s words about the terrible tragedy at Grenfell. I welcome the inquiry and look forward to discussing the statement shortly.
For the past 18 years, Norman has been a full-time carer for his wife, Ros, who has multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease. Earlier this year, he was forced to go back to work to earn the extra money for the cost of caring for his wife. As their income is just a few hundred pounds above the limit for pension credit, they are set to lose their winter fuel allowance, unless the Prime Minister listens to the Liberal Democrats and others and changes that plan. If he does not, what advice does he have for Norman and Ros, and millions of struggling pensioners, as they face rising heating bills this winter?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that important point. I know how much he has championed carers, both politically and personally. We have taken a difficult decision—I do not pretend it is not difficult; of course it is—because we have to stabilise the economy. The first thing that the Chancellor did was an audit. She found £22 billion-worth of unfunded spending commitments. We cannot walk past that; we cannot pretend that it does not exist—that is what the last Government did. We have to take tough decisions. We will put in all the support that we can, and will talk to the right hon. Gentleman about it, but we have to take the tough decisions on this. The Conservatives walked away from those decisions, and that is what got us into this mess in the first place. We cannot grow and fix our economy unless we stabilise it first.
Ed Davey
We recognise the appalling financial problems left to the Prime Minister by the last Conservative Government, but no one understands the difficult decisions required to balance the books as much as unpaid family carers such as Norman. Many millions of pensioners have struggled over recent years thanks to the last Government—the number who cannot afford to heat their homes has doubled since 2019—so will the Prime Minister support our campaign for more urgent action to invest in insulation and renewables, so that we can help pensioners and all families make it cheaper to heat their homes every winter?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that 800,000 pensioners are not claiming pension credit, which of course then deals with the winter fuel payment. That is why we are taking so much care to ensure we get those pensioners on to pension credit. Again, aligning housing benefit with pension credit—something that the last Government left undone for years—will make a massive difference, and of course there is the triple lock, which over five years will mean that pensions are expected to rise by up to £1,000.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for her work on the all-party parliamentary group on hormone pregnancy tests. I am sympathetic to the families who believe their children suffered from those tests, and committed to reviewing any new evidence that comes to light. At the moment, the Department of Health and Social Care is reviewing a publication from Professor Danielsson, and we will follow the results of that review. I am happy to ensure that the Health Minister meets my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for visiting Northern Ireland within the past fortnight, and particularly for the time he spent with injured officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. He will know of their courage, but he will also know of the dogged determination of our chief constable, Jon Boutcher, in his desire to see adequate resourcing for his officers who not only stand for law and order in Northern Ireland, but stand in the face of racism, violence, and an ongoing national security threat from dissident republicans. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister to earnestly and urgently engage in a discussion about uplifting the national security grant afforded to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to ensure that the PSNI can face the challenges that we need them to face head on?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. It was important for me to go to Belfast to meet the injured officers and simply to say thank you for what they are doing, and of course, to recognise the impact on their families. I recognise the difficult financial position that the PSNI faces, and the chief constable and I have spoken about this issue on more than one occasion, as Members would expect. Predominantly, it is for the Justice Minister and the Executive to set the PSNI’s budget, and how the chief constable allocates that budget is an operational matter for him, but I have been talking to him about what further support might be possible, because I realise just how important it is to him, to the PSNI and to Northern Ireland more generally.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. First, it is great that Oasis are back together—from what I have determined, about half the country was probably queuing for tickets over the weekend—but it is depressing to hear of price hikes. I am committed to putting fans at the heart of music and ending extortionate resales, and we are starting a consultation to work out how best we can do that.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are committed to the necessary transition to renewable energy, which will lead to cheaper energy, energy independence and the jobs of the future. But let me be clear: oil and gas will play their part for many years to come, and that is why I have been clear about the support that we have for them. I am sure the hon. Member and others will want to celebrate the fact that, just this week, contracts for difference secured a record 131 new clean energy projects—enough to power 11 million homes—and they are the jobs of the future.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes. I remember that visit well, and was struck by the delays in planning because the system was broken by the previous Government. We will deliver 1.5 million new homes, drive economic growth and fulfil the dream of home ownership shattered for 14 years under the former Government. That means changing the planning rules—a tough decision they were not prepared to make—to make that happen and to grow our economy.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is obviously a considerable concern to him and his constituents. National Grid, as he knows, does balance the grid by occasionally requesting some generators to stop when there is not enough capacity on the network. That is not good enough. That is not acceptable, for the reasons set out in his question. It is a problem that was not fixed over the last 14 years, but a problem we are determined to fix as we go forward. I will make sure that a relevant Minister speaks to him about the particular issue in his constituency.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who brings huge expertise to this area, for his question. We have to reset the new hospital programme and put it on a sustainable footing. The last Government promised 40 new hospitals. The problem is there were not 40, they were not new and some of them were not even hospitals. Hospitals with RAAC, including West Suffolk hospital, must be a priority, so we are reviewing the programme, and the Secretary of State will update Parliament as soon as possible.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I remember when Scottish National party Members used to sit at the front, but they are now a long way up and there are very few of them, so I do not think we need lectures on popularity and winning elections.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are committed to the best education for every child, whatever their background and wherever they come from. The current single grade does not work well. That is why we are going to have a richer dashboard, which will give parents more information and allow intervention more quickly, and why it has been so warmly welcomed across the country.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. Reigate is obviously a place I know very well, as she knows. The reality is this: that decision has been taken because of the £22 billion black hole, so responsibility for the decision lies with the party that broke the economy. There is a reason we have a mandate for change, and a reason why Conservative Members are sitting on the Opposition Benches: it is because they broke the economy, and I am not going to apologise for clearing up the mess that they left.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This is an important issue. I have heard too many people say that antisocial behaviour is some sort of low-level issue, but it really impacts lives across the country and we have to tackle it. That is why we will put more police on the streets, have more effective powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, and introduce Young Futures programmes to divert young people who are getting into trouble.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The Schools Minister will be happy to visit the hon. Member’s constituency.
Sir Ashley Fox
I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. Haygrove School is one of the top-performing schools in Somerset, but it is unfortunately one of those built by Caledonian Modular and now condemned as unsafe. I am grateful for the meeting with the Schools Minister, but can the Prime Minister give Haygrove and the other schools affected an assurance that they will be rebuilt, and quickly, because those pupils and staff are still working in portacabins?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful, and I recognise how serious an issue this is and why the hon. Member raises it. It is of real importance. The Minister will visit, and the Department for Education is pursuing all available avenues for redress against the parties responsible for the issues at the school. I will ensure that the Minister is fully briefed and has a full discussion about that when the visit takes place.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and I know he will be a really strong champion for his constituency. We are a Government who will be based on action, not slogans, and that is why we will have local growth plans, improved public services and investment in transport links. We will fix the mess that the Conservatives left after 14 years, and we will devolve power to those with skin in the game.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this question about fatalities on roads, which are a very serious issue on the A66 and other roads across the country. We have inherited a broken economy, and we have to review what we are spending money on. We are going through that review, and we will report back as soon as we can.
Gurinder Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister join me in sending condolences to the family of Jahziah Coke, a 13-year-old boy who was stabbed and tragically killed in my constituency? Does he share my concern about the prevalence of young people carrying knives? What more can be done to end this scourge that is destroying families and communities?
The Prime Minister
I am sure I speak for the whole House in saying that our thoughts are with Jahziah’s family at this difficult time. This is tragic, it is senseless and his age just absolutely makes one shudder. Our mission is to halve knife crime. Zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes will be banned from 24 September, and there is a surrender scheme, which started on 26 August. We are doing a rapid review of the online sale of knives, which is often a problem in these cases. We will pursue that with determination, and I invite everybody across the House, in light of this and so many other tragic cases, to join with us on that mission.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Those of us from Staffordshire Moorlands are immensely proud of our beautiful area and unique identity. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that we will not be forced into a devolution deal or local government reorganisation against our will?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that local people have a say, but it is equally important that we devolve to those who have skin in the game. One of the ways in which we can restart our economy is by making sure that those with skin in the game take the decisions that are relevant to them and their area.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This morning, Sir Martin Moore-Bick published the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking him, the members of the inquiry and the whole team for their dedicated work.
I want to speak directly to the bereaved families, the survivors, and those in the immediate Grenfell community, some of whom are with us in the Gallery today. Sir Martin concluded this morning—I am afraid that there is no way of repeating this that will not be painful—that
“the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways”
by, as the report lays out in full, just about every institution responsible for ensuring their safety. In the face of an injustice so painful and so deserving of anger, words can begin to lose their meaning, after seven years still waiting for the justice that you deserve. I want to say very clearly, on behalf of the country, that you have been let down so badly before, during and in the aftermath of this tragedy.
While Sir Martin sets out a catalogue of appalling industry failures, for which there must now be full accountability, he also finds
“decades of failure by central government”.
He concludes:
“In the years between the fire at Knowsley Heights in 1991 and the fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017 there were many opportunities for the government to identify the risks posed by the use of combustible cladding panels and insulation…by 2016, the department was well aware of those risks, but failed to act on what it knew.”
Further, he finds:
“The department itself was poorly run”
and
“the government’s deregulatory agenda…dominated the department’s thinking to such an extent that even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded.”
So I want to start with an apology on behalf of the British state to each and every one of you, and indeed to all the families affected by this tragedy. It should never have happened. The country failed to discharge its most fundamental duty to protect you and your loved ones—the people we are here to serve—and I am deeply sorry. I also want to express my admiration for the strength it must have taken to relive those events when giving your evidence to the inquiry, and indeed to see written down today the circumstances that led to the deaths of your loved ones.
After all that you have been through, you may feel that you are always one step away from another betrayal. I get that, and I know that I cannot change that with just words today. But what I can say is that I listened carefully to one of the members of the inquiry, Ali Akbor, this morning. He said this:
“What is needed is for those with responsibility for building safety to reflect and to treat Grenfell as a touchstone in all that they do in the future.”
I consider myself someone responsible for building safety, and that is exactly what I will do and what I will demand of this Government.
Today is a long-awaited day of truth. It must now lead to a day of justice—justice for the victims and the families of Grenfell—but also a moment to reflect on the state of social justice in our country and a chance for this Government of service to turn the page. That is because this tragedy poses fundamental questions about the kind of country we are. A country where the voices of working-class people and those of colour have been repeatedly ignored and dismissed. A country where tenants of a social housing block in one of the richest parts of the land are treated like second-class citizens, shamefully dismissed, in the words of one survivor, as
“people with needs and problems”
and not respected as citizens, as people who contribute to Britain, who are part of Britain and who belong in Britain. Unbelievably, that continued even after the tragedy. Sir Martin highlights:
“Certain aspects of the response demonstrated a marked lack of respect for human decency and dignity and left many of those immediately affected feeling abandoned by authority and utterly helpless.”
That alone should make anyone who feels any affinity towards justice bristle with anger. Sir Martin continues that he finds
“systematic dishonesty on the part of those who made and sold the rainscreen cladding panels and insulation products.”
He goes on to say:
“They engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.”
Sir Martin also cites
“a complete failure on the part of the LABC”—
the Local Authority Building Control—
“over a number of years to take basic steps to ensure that the certificates it issued…were technically accurate.”
He finds that the work of the Building Research Establishment
“was marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices, a lack of effective oversight, poor reporting and a lack of scientific rigour”
and that the tenant management organisation
“must…bear a share of the blame”.
Its only fire safety assessor
“had misrepresented his experience and qualifications (some of which he had invented) and was ill-qualified to carry out fire risk assessments on buildings of the size and complexity of Grenfell Tower”.
He also finds
“a chronic lack of effective management and leadership”
on behalf of the London Fire Brigade, with tragic consequences on the night of the fire.
In the light of such findings, it is imperative that there is full accountability, including through the criminal justice process, and that this happens as swiftly as possible. I can tell the House today that this Government will write to all companies found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings, as the first step to stopping them being awarded Government contracts. We will, of course, support the Metropolitan police and the prosecutors as they complete their investigations. But it is vital that as we respond to this report today, we do not do or say anything that could compromise any future prosecution, because the greatest injustice of all would be for the victims and all those affected not to get the justice that they deserve.
There must also be more radical action to stop something like this from ever happening again. One of the most extraordinary qualities of the Grenfell community is their determination to look forward. They are fighting not only for justice for themselves but to ensure that no other community suffers as they have done.
Some important reforms have taken place in the last seven years, which we supported in opposition, including banning combustible cladding, new oversight of building control, a new safety regime for all residential buildings over 18 metres, new legal requirements on social landlords, and making sure that fire and rescue services are trained and equipped to handle large-scale incidents, including moving from “stay put” to “get out” when needed. We are now addressing the recommendation from Sir Martin’s first report to introduce a new residential personal emergency evacuation plan policy for anyone whose ability to evacuate could be compromised, with funding for those renting in social housing.
We will look at all 58 of Sir Martin’s recommendations in detail. There will be a debate on the floor of this House. We will respond in full to the inquiry’s recommendations within six months, and we will update Parliament annually on our progress against every commitment we make. But there are some things I can say right now. There are still buildings today with unsafe cladding. The speed at which this is being addressed is far, far too slow. We only have to look at the fire in Dagenham last week—a building that was still in the process of having its cladding removed. This must be a moment of change. We will take the necessary steps to speed this up. We will be willing to force freeholders to assess their buildings and enter remediation schemes within set timescales, with a legal requirement to force action if that is what it takes. We will set out further steps on remediation this autumn.
We will also reform the construction products industry that made this fatal cladding, so homes are made of safe materials and those who compromise that safety will face the consequences. We will ensure that tenants and their leaseholders can never again be ignored, and that social landlords are held to account for the decency and safety of their homes. As the Government tackle the most acute housing crisis in living memory, building 1.5 million new homes across the country, we will ensure those homes are safe, secure and built to the highest standards; places of security, health and wellbeing that serve the needs of residents and their wider communities, because a safe and decent home is a human right and a basic expectation, and the provision of that right should never be undermined by the reckless pursuit of greed. One of the tragedies of Grenfell is that this is a community that nurtured so much of what we want from housing: people who had made the Tower their home and were entitled to a place of safety and security, not a deathtrap. And yet, time and again they were ignored.
Two weeks ago, I made a private visit to Grenfell Tower. I laid a wreath at the memorial wall and affirmed the Government’s commitment to the work of the Memorial Commission, delivering a permanent memorial on the site through a process led by the Grenfell community. As I walked down that narrow staircase from the 23rd floor and looked at walls burned by 1,000-degree heat, I got just a sense of how utterly, utterly terrifying it must have been. As I saw examples of the cladding on the outside of the building and listened to descriptions of the catastrophic and completely avoidable failures of that fatal refurbishment, I felt just a sense of the anger that now rises through that building. It left me a with a profound and very personal determination to make the legacy of Grenfell Tower one of the defining changes to our country that I want to make as Prime Minister.
To the families, the survivors and the immediate community, we will support you now and always—especially those who were children. In the memory of your loved ones, we will deliver a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone in this country. In the memory of Grenfell, we will change our country; not just a change in policy and regulation, although that must of course take place, but a profound shift in culture and behaviour, a rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are and wherever they live.
We will bring the full power of government to bear on this task, because that is the responsibility of service and the duty we owe to the memory of every one of the 72. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement, especially given the timing of Prime Minister’s question time. I associate myself and everyone on this side of the House with the Prime Minister’s powerful words regarding the pain of the bereaved families, survivors and all those affected the tragic events surrounding Grenfell Tower. Many are with us today in the Gallery, and I want to pay tribute to their strength and patience in waiting for this moment. It is not hyperbole to say that we would not be here today without them. It was their tenacity and strength that brought the truth to light. For that, they deserve our thanks. Their search for truth and justice is a noble one and has our full support. While the Grenfell community’s loss will have left a hole that nothing will ever be able to fill, I hope that whatever healing is possible from today, each and every one of them takes some small measure of it. I know they will never forget the 72 people who tragically lost their lives, and nor shall we.
Today’s publication, as the Prime Minister said, is, to put it bluntly, a damning indictment of over 30 years of successive state failures, stretching as far back as Knowsley Heights in 1991 and then multiple incidents from there. Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the work of the inquiry have painted a picture of systemic indifference, failure and, in some notable cases, dishonesty and greed. Sir Martin and the team working on the inquiry are to be commended for the depth and rigour of their work. While such a comprehensive report as has been published today deserves to be considered in full, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitments for time in the House to do that, there are some immediate points that I feel will command support across the House and that I will address to the Prime Minister.
First, the work to remediate and, where possible, identify new at-risk buildings must continue if we are to meet, as I am confident the whole House would agree, the former right hon. Member for Maidenhead’s pledge that no such tragedy could occur again. I know that task is not a simple one and I thank the Prime Minister for recognising the importance of this issue. A significant barrier to making progress quicker is financial liability. That was an issue I was all too aware of when I became Chancellor and why one of the first major spending decisions I made was the creation of a new £1 billion fund to pay for remediation works in public and private buildings affected by materials beyond dangerous ACM cladding. The previous Government’s cladding safety scheme has ensured an additional £5.1 billion is available to support remediation work, coming from a combination of a developer contribution and a building safety levy. I ask the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to give due consideration to any further requests, especially with the upcoming fiscal event towards the end of October.
The second point I am confident the Prime Minister would agree on is the need to maintain and update our legal and regulatory framework to keep pace with changes in materials, construction and supply. The last Parliament passed the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022. I acknowledge, as the Prime Minister said, that he worked constructively with the then Government to deliver those improvements. These pieces of legislation comprehensively reformed our fire safety and building regulation regimes and ensured that a new building safety regulator, located in the Health and Safety Executive, was created. But I also know that these are stepping stones towards a fire and building safety regime that remains persistently fit for purpose. In particular, I urge the Prime Minister to give special attention to the recommendations in today’s report, especially its call for: more regular updating of approved document B; a single regulator; a sole Secretary of State responsible, to end the fragmentation of Whitehall responsibilities; and a new chief construction adviser. I want the Prime Minister to know that should he deem that further legislation is required to support proportionate and necessary measures to protect the public, while protecting leaseholders from excessive cost, we will work collegiately with him to deliver that.
Thirdly, allied to the need for continued improvement in the legal and regulatory frameworks, the report also shines a light on the significant failures of oversight. Those responsible for ensuring the independence and rigour of testing and compliance were found by this report to have had those very things compromised. In particular, the BRE in its work with suppliers in part enabled what Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report has plainly described as systematically dishonest behaviour on the part of suppliers. So, I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to continue to support the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service in pursuing any appropriate criminal charges against a small number of developers and contractors who knowingly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for greed and financial gain.
I do not want to let this moment pass without also acknowledging the local failures today’s report highlights, whether from: the tenant management organisation responsible for the building itself, which allowed relationships with those living in Grenfell Tower to become so broken that tenants were marginalised and, at worst, ignored; the repeated fire safety reports that were not acted on; the lack of effective management and leadership at London Fire Brigade; or the local council, which had a lack of adequate oversight into the management and maintenance of the building, and the cares and concerns of those living in it.
There will be further lessons to learn from this inquiry. There will be difficult questions for all those responsible, acting over a long period of time. I know the Prime Minister will agree that we must approach those questions with the honesty and directness they deserve.
Let me conclude. At the time, the former right hon. Member for Maidenhead apologised to the victims for what she described as failures at a local and national level in response to the fire. I share in those same words still. I think today, however, demands more. As a Prime Minister, current or former, you are a custodian of the state. Its failures, whether on your watch or not, are something that you feel deeply. To that end, I want to extend my deepest apologies to the families and victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The state let you down, and it must never do so again. The mission to ensure that no such tragedy can ever happen again is one that I know the whole House supports, but more than that, it is part of a legacy that we must create and maintain, so that our actions meet the full meaning of our words.
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the tone and substance of his response. We do owe it to the victims, their families and the community to work together to ensure that they get the justice they deserve, and that we make this a turning point that means this will never happen again. There will be a debate in which the whole House can participate, because although hon. Members have an opportunity to ask questions today, they will also want to make substantive contributions on this tragic issue and, no doubt, on issues of concern in their own constituencies relating to cladding and fire safety, so we will ensure that time is available.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s approach to working jointly, as we were able to do ourselves when we were in opposition. In particular, the remediation work is behind schedule and needs to speed up, and we must do all we can in that regard. Financial liability is obviously an issue, and we will look into the sufficiency of that. As for the legal and regulatory framework, obviously changes have already been made, but I think further changes will be necessary, and we will share those with the Opposition as soon as we have some realistic proposals to put before the House. If we can then join together in passing the necessary legislation as quickly as possible, it will be a mark of our determination to treat this as a turning point.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on criminal proceedings. We clearly do not want to prejudice those proceedings, but I do not think anyone could read this report and not be absolutely shocked by the description of some of the dishonesty—this was not just incompetence but dishonesty: the manipulation of tests and the market. It is not possible to read about that in the pages of this report and not have a renewed determination to ensure that justice is delivered for those who deserve that justice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks about the need for caution in comments relating to particular legal cases or inquests. I repeat the waiver that I granted under the sub judice rule on 21 June 2022, and I appeal to all Members absolutely to speak, but to be cautious about what they say.
I now call the Mother of the House.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister recognise how painful it must be for the Grenfell community to have had that tower looming over them for seven years, and for it to have taken seven years even to reach this stage? Having visited Grenfell, he will be aware that most of the 72 who died were among the most marginalised, and that they were largely people of migrant heritage. Can he give an assurance that the bereaved will receive all the support they need, including financial support, and can he also give an assurance that it will not take another seven years to bring those responsible to justice?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right to focus on the community and the bereaved. Decisions on a memorial, whatever form it takes, must be taken in consultation with the community, and I give an absolute commitment that we will do that as well as providing the support that they need. During my visit, I had a sense—just a small sense—of just how painful this must have been and continues to be. We cannot allow another seven years to pass before we take the necessary action.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for his extremely powerful comments and associate my party with all of them. The Grenfell disaster is a tragedy that shames our whole society. The report lays bare failings of Governments of all parties over decades, and on behalf of my party, I am sorry. We must all learn from it and do everything we can to change the system, in order to prevent more horrifying tragedies like this from happening in the future.
It is right that we pause today and remember the 72 people who lost their lives, as well as the survivors and bereaved families and friends who have fought so long and so hard for justice. This is their day. They have waited far too long to get the truth, and many will remain frustrated that even after today they will still be waiting for justice and meaningful action. Let me therefore raise three of the many issues that the families have raised.
First, in order to get the justice that the families crave, criminality must be investigated, tried and punished, whether it is corporate manslaughter, fraud or misconduct in public office. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the police, prosecutors and courts will have all the resources they need to bring those responsible swiftly to justice?
Secondly, what more can the Prime Minister do—what more can we all do—to bring about greater urgency when it comes to acting on all these recommendations, so that the report does not just gather dust on a Whitehall shelf? Even now, seven years on, essential work to make more than 2,300 buildings safe has not even started. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what more will be done to remove dangerous cladding as quickly as possible, forcing those responsible to pay, not the tenants and leaseholders?
Finally, we must tackle the big systemic issues that come up time and again in such scandals, from Hillsborough to Horizon to infected blood. Like the victims of other scandals, the bereaved and survivors of Grenfell have called for a duty of candour on public officials, and we welcomed its inclusion in the King’s Speech. Can the Prime Minister tell us when that legislation will be published, and whether the duty will cover all public officials?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in the sense that this has taken too long and has been too hard, and it is not unique in that respect when it comes to injustices of this kind. Let me deal with his specific points. It is really important that criminality is fully investigated, and we will give the relevant authorities all the support and resources necessary. We will respond as quickly as possible to the report’s recommendations, within six months. It is a long report and there are many recommendations, and I think it is right that we take time to look through them, consider how they can complied with and then come back to the House, and come back to the House annually, to assess the progress that we are making and to be held to account on it. There is no doubt that the removal of cladding needs to be speeded up, and measures have already been taken in that regard.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Hillsborough law, which featured in the King’s Speech. The duty of candour is very important. We will look at it again in the light of the report, because although we are determined to introduce the legislation as quickly as we can—it is long overdue—I think, having read some of the report already, that it is worth reflecting and ensuring that what is in the report is incorporated in whatever law we being forward.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
As we have heard, it is now more than seven years since 72 people lost their lives in Grenfell Tower in north Kensington. As we have heard again today, the disaster was entirely foreseen and entirely preventable. It was the result of organisations and individuals being systemically dishonest and putting profit before people’s lives. I pay tribute to the next of kin, the bereaved and the survivors, including those who are here today, for their resilience and strength; this is a very painful day for the community.
The shameless merry-go-round of buck-passing that has happened for the past seven years must now come to an end, so I thank the Prime Minister for his personal commitment to driving lasting change and holding people accountable. Can he assure me that the Government will now do everything in their power to ensure that criminal prosecutions take place as soon as possible? Can he commit to ensuring that companies identified in the report are excluded from public contracts, are held to account to the full extent of the law, and pay their full weight of the cost of the building safety remedial work that is necessary? Can he also ensure that the phase 2 recommendations for central Government will be a blueprint for real change, and that their implementation will be swift and as comprehensive as possible, so that we can truly say that a tragedy like Grenfell will not happen again?
The Prime Minister
I can confirm that we will do everything to ensure that there is full accountability, including criminal accountability, where appropriate. I remind the House—as you have done, Mr Speaker—that notwithstanding the strong findings in the report, the last thing that the victims, the bereaved and the community want or need is for anything to go wrong with possible legal proceedings. We must all bear that in mind, but I absolutely understand my hon. Friend’s sentiment. On the contracts, I stand by what I said in my statement.
I concur with my hon. Friend on the resilience and strength of the victims, the families, the survivors and the community. It must have been really hard to give evidence to the inquiry, and it must be really hard to read the details of what happened in this long report. It must be even harder still to read the conclusions about the failures and the dishonesty, so we must pay respect to their resilience and strength.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Very sadly, for most of us this report is not a surprise, because many of the things that were being said over many years have now come to fruition in its recommendations. As the Prime Minister has rightly alluded to, it is clear that the conspiracy around the testing of products must be subject to criminal proceedings. Will he therefore look immediately at some of the recommendations that affect the Government: namely, bringing responsibility under one Department, with one Minister being responsible and answerable to this House, to make sure that action is taken? Secondly, will he ensure that a single regulator is introduced to make sure that the various different aspects that were clearly wrong do not occur again?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is really important. We will report back on all the recommendations within six months, but if we can act more quickly on some of them, we will do so straightaway. We have six months to report back, but if there are recommendations that we can accept and move forward, we will do so rather than wait for the end of the six-month period, because it is very important, for all the reasons that he powerfully put across.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his comments on the community in north Kensington, which is also my community in Shepherd’s Bush and Hammersmith. Grenfell Tower is a daily presence not only for the survivors and the families of victims, but for all of us in west London, particularly those who live in the many high-rise buildings surrounding Grenfell. Will the Prime Minister ensure that all housing is built safe and made safe from the risk of fire, which his predecessors failed to do? Above all, will he pledge that those complicit in the Grenfell fire are brought to justice so that there is no mistake about their guilt or their punishment?
The Prime Minister
It is important that there is full accountability and that, where appropriate, people are brought to justice—that is the least that the families, the survivors, the bereaved and the community deserve. I absolutely understand my hon. Friend’s point about the wider community. This tragedy has impacted the wider community, as he well knows from his work as the constituency MP. I saw a bit of that when I visited. There are various writings on the wall around the memorial, where people from the area have recorded their private views, and they are an important read for anybody who wants to be in a position of leadership.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I also thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick.
May I refer the Prime Minister to recommendation 113.58? After Piper Alpha, an independent offshore safety investigation body was established. After the Paddington rail crash, we established the independent Rail Accident Investigation Board. Former Fire and Housing Minister Nick Raynsford, former chief investigator of the air accidents investigation branch Keith Conradi, a leading building control specialist and I made a submission to the inquiry recommending that there should be independent incident investigation of serious building failures of this nature, which would be able to conduct an investigation far more quickly than a public inquiry and with accumulated expertise. However, that role has been left to the London Fire Brigade, which has been heavily criticised and would therefore be conflicted in any investigation of a similar incident. That is why the LFB was not put in charge of investigating this incident in the first place. Could we come and see the Prime Minister about this very serious matter?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising a really serious issue. We will, of course, look at that recommendation. We will report to the House, and I will make sure that a meeting is set up so that he is able to input directly into our considerations on that particular recommendation and any others that he has concerns about.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
First and foremost, today is about the families of Grenfell and the 72 people who died. For them, today is another emotionally exhausting day, but we must remember that their fight for justice is also our fight. Grenfell laid bare the sad truth of the stigma attached to social housing. It is a stigma I remember experiencing when people made assumptions because I lived on a council estate. It is a stigma that attaches to people from all walks of life—teachers, doctors and firefighters. They are people who pay their rent on time, but who are treated with disdain by housing providers.
This damning report confirms that people’s voices were ignored, and that safety concerns about the industry were ignored or disregarded at all levels of the Government and the housing sector. It is unforgivable. The Prime Minister has spoken about the culture. Will he commit to ensuring that this new Government address the culture within our housing sector, which often treats social housing tenants as an afterthought?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully and makes a really important point in relation to social housing, and the report is littered with examples of disrespect and of people not being listened to or taken seriously. Yes, policy and regulation are part of the answer to this issue, but policy and regulation on their own are not the complete answer. There has to be a change in culture and behaviour, and turning a corner needs to mean something more than passing a new law or putting in place new guidance, much needed though that is. It means all of us adopting a different culture and behaviour. Otherwise, we will be back here in I don’t know how many years having the same debate again, and we cannot visit that on the victims, the survivors, the deceased and the communities of Grenfell.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Our hearts ache at the injustice and horror that befell individuals and their families at Grenfell Tower, and I commend the Prime Minister for the strength and power of his remarks from the Dispatch Box today. Can he give a commitment that his Government will continue to work constructively with the devolved Governments to ensure the quick removal of all cladding right across these isles, so that we do not see a repeat of this horrible tragedy?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and that is a really important point. Regardless of where someone lives or which Government they live under, the right to safe and secure housing is important. The Deputy Prime Minister has already met the First Minister of Scotland, and we will take every opportunity to work jointly on this issue.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
How many times must we come here and hear another example of how the state, which should be on the side of ordinary people, becomes the enemy of working-class people? We have had Hillsborough, the Horizon Post Office scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, Windrush, and the treatment of former armed forces personnel who are members of the LGBT community. In each of those, the state has become the enemy of the people and delayed paying compensation to them.
Can the Grenfell inquiry be a watershed when we end the process by which the state becomes the enemy of working-class people, we treat them with the dignity they deserve, and we ensure that their compensation is paid rapidly and not delayed, as it has been in all those other cases? In the case of freeholders who are still holding out and not paying for the remedial work to their properties, it is about time they paid fines for delaying that work.
The Prime Minister
That is a really important point, because there have been I don’t know how many examples of injustice where people have not been listened to and have been disregarded. Different Prime Ministers over the years have stood at this Dispatch Box and quite genuinely made commitments on the back of reports. I do not doubt that for a minute. I think every Prime Minister who has stood here in relation to any of those injustices meant every word that he or she said in response, and yet it goes on. So there is something more fundamental that we have to make time to consider, because I do not want to be back at this Dispatch Box—or any future Prime Minister to be at this Dispatch Box—having a version of the same discussion about injustice, about people being disregarded, not listened to and not taken seriously after the event for too long, and about justice coming too late for people who desperately need it. That is what I mean by turning a corner.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The inquiry report is damning, and the testimony that we heard is utterly devastating. First and foremost, all our thoughts are with the victims, the survivors, the bereaved and everybody affected.
In the last Parliament, many of us fought tooth and nail on a cross-party basis to improve the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill so that social tenants and leaseholders who are still living in buildings covered in cladding and with other fire safety defects could get that remediation work done as quickly as possible. It is now clear that in some cases, the waterfall system that has been set up, by which we identify who is responsible, is simply not working and is taking far too long. One idea that was on the table in the last Parliament was that in some cases, the Government could put the money up to pay for the remediation, to take away the risk, and then use the power of the state and its lawyers to go after those responsible with penalties, so that the taxpayer would not lose out. Will the Prime Minister, who says that this is a moment of change and has committed to speed things up, please review that idea to see whether it could be used in some limited cases where there has still been no action?
The Prime Minister
That is a really important point. From my own constituency, I know of examples where there was a contract, then a subcontract, a subcontract and another subcontract. In one case in my constituency, it went through seven subcontractors before the person who was actually responsible was found. Everybody simply took a cut of the contract and passed it on. That is a real problem, and we have to get to the bottom of it. We cannot allow that to happen. Of course, we will consider any proposals that are put forward in response to this report, but this is a very real problem of contracts simply being subcontracted over and over again. Trying to find accountability is very, very difficult.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. I recently visited the Grenfell site with Lord Boateng, who is in the Gallery today—
Dawn Butler
Excuse me, Mr Speaker. Everybody there at Grenfell wants people to be held responsible—those in boots but also those in suits. A lot of money has also gone missing, and some have called for the use of joint enterprise to ensure that everybody is held responsible. Some survivors have written a poetry book, and there is one poem called “So What Simon” by Mary Gardiner. This is just the ending:
“This is not about mercy, grace or kindness.
It’s about justice and honesty and believing we are all born equal and that is how we die.
No amount of wealth can make us differ so much that where we live becomes a rabbit hutch.
Change your minds, you people with power, or give it over and let us flower.”
Does the Prime Minister agree that justice delayed is justice denied?
The Prime Minister
Yes I do, and I particularly agree that justice is not a question of grace or kindness; it is an entitlement. It is an entitlement of every single citizen in this country, and that needs to be honoured as we go forward from here. Can I just take the opportunity to thank all those working on the memorial, which I know is very important? The work on the memorial is at an important stage, and I know it is very important to the community.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. The Grenfell fire was an unimaginable tragedy but, as he rightly said, it was also a comprehensive failure by the British state, and in many respects that comprehensive failure persists today. I am grateful for the words that he said about giving all resource and support to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, because clearly the victims, the survivors and the community of North Kensington want the insights and the answers that they have partly had today, but they also want justice, and that needs to be delivered as soon as possible.
Equally, I fully support the effort that the Prime Minister is going to make to see if further regulatory changes are required. They need to be made in a proportionate and effective way, and there are lessons to be learned from changes that we have made in the recent past. But when making those changes, can I urge him to look in particular at the status of the testing facility—the Building Research Establishment—and at the way it operates, which I think has failed significantly, as is laid out in the report?
Finally, I concur with the broader point that the Prime Minister made today, which is that when one speaks to the victims and their families, one is left with a very strong sense that many people in social housing in our country feel that they are second-class citizens and that they are being treated with disrespect. That must end. Will he take forward the work that began with the social housing White Paper to ensure that that never happens again?
The Prime Minister
Yes, all support will be given to the police and the CPS, and I absolutely agree that this must be done as swiftly as possible. I think the police made a statement in relation to that earlier today. I will look at the particular point the right hon. Gentleman raises in relation to testing. I think the whole House needs to come together to recognise that in social housing there has been a profound disrespect for a very long time across a number of communities, and we have to turn a corner on that.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Following the wildfires of 2022 in Dagenham and Rainham, the ongoing crisis at Launders Lane in Rainham and now the devastating fire at the Spectrum building, also in my constituency, will the Prime Minister join me in commending the outstanding work of our emergency services? Will he also comment on the Government’s plans to improve fire resilience and safety in residential buildings and to hold those who are responsible to account when tragedies like this happen?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it is important that they are held to account. I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues in relation to Dagenham and I join her in commending the emergency services who have to respond to these awful incidents. From speaking to some of the first responders, I got a real sense of the impact it has on them. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has visited the Dagenham scene in the last few days.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the way he delivered it, and Sir Martin for his comprehensive report. The needless deaths that happened at Grenfell will never go away and never be forgotten. Those of us who have been on the silent walks for Grenfell every year since it happened, and visited many times, fully understand the strength of feeling and the deep anger in the community at this needless loss of life, brought about by a contract culture, deregulation, privatisation, ignorance and, frankly, contempt for working-class communities by many who should have done much more to protect and defend those people. So I hope the Prime Minister’s words will be carried through, and that criminal action will follow against those who deliberately neglected those who were in appalling and extreme danger.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the removal of dangerous cladding that has happened at most local authority-owned buildings all over the country will now also take place in the private sector leasehold buildings that many of our constituents live in, where they are faced with enormous insurance costs because of the existence of dangerous cladding? This has gone on for several years, and as the companies that are responsible for the dangerous cladding refuse to pay up, the problem is forced on to the people who are themselves the victims who are being put in danger.
There are so many lessons to be learned from Grenfell, and I hope that the contract culture in local government that the Prime Minister just spoke about—the endless subcontracting, subcontracting and subcontracting so that those responsible for dangerous conditions evade all responsibility—will end. I also hope that we will end the idea of the local government internal market and instead have the principle of local government delivery of service as the primary responsibility to ensure that all citizens live in safety, and that council housing grows rapidly over the next few years and we get more good quality, secure council housing built for the good of the people who are living in desperate housing need, often in the private rented sector.
The Prime Minister
We are taking action on that important point about leaseholders, be it in relation to insurance or in relation to other issues of which the House is well aware. It is important that is included in the work we take forward, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring the quality of council housing and social housing as we build those 1.5 million homes. As the whole House knows, it is not just a number that we are talking about. Each and every person who lost their life is a human being to be respected, cherished and remembered for who they were.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
On the Chelsea council estates that I have the honour of representing, Grenfell and the incompetence and indifference shown by the local council and the tenant management organisation, both before and after the tragedy, are still very much discussed. One of the striking things brought out by the report is the extraordinary response of the local community where the official response failed. It was heartening to hear the Prime Minister talk about a rebalancing of power, which is essential. I hope that we will ensure that councils gather proper information on the disabled people living in social housing, 15 of whom died in the Grenfell fire, to ensure that they can be evacuated safely in such a situation.
As well as taking action against companies, which I fully support, will the Prime Minister commit to working closely with local authorities to implement the report, and to protect our fellow citizens, whether they live in social housing or not, from this sort of thing happening again?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It was really hard to read the part of the report that deals with the indifference and disrespect after the tragedy. I would have thought that after such a tragedy, whatever the failures that went before, these people would at the very least be treated with the utmost respect, yet the same disregard and lack of basic respect and dignity continued. That is part of what this report is about.
It is important that there are plans in place for disabled people, and we have taken that forward for people with disabilities who are housed in circumstances in which they clearly need an evacuation plan. Of course we will work on this with local authorities and all relevant authorities.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
One of the things I learned from my interactions with the bereaved, survivors and Grenfell United during my time as Housing Minister is that their pain was compounded by their frustration at the pace of change, even some years after the fire. I shared their frustration as we tried to make progress on building safety issues. One of the things that sharpened our minds and made the Government machine jump to it was the prospect of external scrutiny. I heard the Prime Minister say that he wants to return annually to update the House on progress. I know he will do his best, but I am afraid that I do not think that will give the Government machine the kind of impetus required. Will he recommend to whoever is elected Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that they establish a Sub-Committee to look at progress on the report’s recommendations? If not, will he support the establishment of a cross-party Committee of the House to drive through these changes and to monitor Government progress? Although an annual debate is welcome, I do not think it will give the sense of urgency required to address these issues swiftly.
The Prime Minister
The question of external scrutiny is really important, and we will, of course, report annually. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the report has a recommendation on scrutiny that we want to look at carefully and discuss with the community, which has strong views on this. Obviously, we will take into account the views of Members on both sides of the House, including on whether this is something a Select Committee should look at. I am not sure it is my role to tell a Select Committee what to look at, but I agree that the question of external scrutiny and accountability is really important. We have to make sure that the most robust scrutiny is in place.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I do not think I have ever heard my right hon. and learned Friend speak more powerfully, more personally or more movingly than he did in this statement. I know that the more than 20,000 residents in my constituency who are still living in high-rise blocks with the nightmare of fire risk constantly upon them will welcome what he said about the Government taking a consistent and measured view of the recommendations, and moving to implement them systematically. They will also welcome what he said about the prosecution of those responsible for what Sir Martin called “systematic dishonesty” and
“deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes”.
I reinforce what the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said about remediation. Many of the owners of these blocks have sold on to further owners, and to further owners beyond that. The Prime Minister spoke about subcontracting, but there has also been on-selling. Some of those owners live in tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, and they are simply not complying. They are not even applying to the building safety fund to get this remediation work done. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider very carefully what powers the Government can take in order to take control of these buildings, get the work done and then recover the costs, if necessary by acquiring and selling the buildings themselves?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very real issue. One of the things we need to do is look at what further powers may be necessary. We cannot suggest for a minute that the existing legislation, guidance and policy is sufficient. We need more powers, and we will look at that and bring proposals back to the House. There will be a general debate, of course, because I know that many Members will want to discuss particular issues facing constituents who are fearful of the conditions in which they live.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I thank the Prime Minister for his very serious and compassionate statement. The events of June 2017 feel like yesterday. Although I cannot imagine how the people directly affected are feeling right now, we must act in every way we can, and we must act together as much as possible.
However, I note that the inquiry’s report does not make new proposals on transparency and accountability for social housing tenants and leaseholders, particularly on access to fire risk assessments and related information, which are still very hard for residents to access—I saw that for myself in London, and I am still seeing it in Brighton. The previous Government did not act on the calls for housing associations to be subject to freedom of information requirements, despite them including calls made by the Information Commissioner as long ago as August 2017. Will the Prime Minister act now to fix these gaps in resident empowerment and access to information? That would be very simple, but it is not covered by today’s report.
The Prime Minister
We will obviously look at all the recommendations and report back to the House, but we need to look at the wider issues too. Access to risk assessments is an important issue that we are considering. There should not be gaps. One of the benefits of a general debate is that it will be an opportunity to raise these and further points, which we will take away and consider.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Today my thoughts are with the victims, the survivors, the families and the entire Grenfell community. The systemic dishonesty and many other injustices meant that the people of Grenfell were treated like second-class citizens. Successive Governments, the local authority and industry knew about the risks, but they failed to act.
As Sir Martin said, the deaths that occurred were entirely avoidable. Seven years on, no none has faced criminal proceedings and there are still thousands living in homes wrapped in unsafe cladding. I welcome what the Prime Minister has said today, I welcome the way he delivered his statement, and I am thankful that the Government will implement the phase 1 recommendation to ensure that every disabled person living in a high-rise block has a personal evacuation plan specific to their needs, but when the Prime Minister returns to update the House, it is vital that those living in unsafe homes have clear deadlines for when the flammable or unsafe cladding will be removed, so that they can have a decent night’s sleep.
The Prime Minister
I agree that the work is going too slowly; we need to push that work on, with clear timetables to ensure it is done. In response to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, the wording of the report, which says that the deaths were entirely “avoidable”, must be chilling for all the family members and the community at large.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their candour, and the tone that they adopted—it was pitch perfect. May I press the Prime Minister on a point made by Sir Max Hill KC in broadcast interviews this morning, about the urgent need for justice and for prosecutions to be brought? Colleagues across the House have raised the issue, and the Prime Minister has addressed it, but will he ensure that there is adequate resource in the policing arena and capacity in the court system to bring cases, where appropriate, as speedily as possible? Businesses are inclined to dissolve themselves and disappear into the ether very quickly. Will he make sure that there is capacity in both the investigation and prosecution arenas to ensure speed? We all recognise that people have been waiting far too long.
The Prime Minister
Sir Max Hill has personal experience of these sorts of cases, as have I. We need to ensure that resource is in place, and that we are clear about the speed of decision making. They are not straightforward decisions, but none the less they should be taken as swiftly as possible. We need to ensure that the courts are in a position to handle the cases as soon as they are ready to go to court, if there are cases to go to court.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I join colleagues in remembering the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy, and I say to their friends and families that I will always fight to deliver justice for their loved ones. As chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group, I put on record my admiration for the heroic bravery of the firefighters who attended that night. The FBU has long said that deregulation and corporate greed were the reasons for the catastrophe, and the report vindicates that view. Does the Prime Minister agree? When will the Government set up the statutory advisory body on fire policy, in order to give firefighters and control staff a voice in setting national standards, and to ensure lessons are learned? When will the timetable for that be set?
The Prime Minister
I place on record my gratitude to the firefighters on the night. Having been to Grenfell Tower, I can only begin to imagine what it must have been like to have been confronted with the situation that they faced, and to deal with the circumstances they had to deal with. Time and again, our first responders are asked by us, rightly, to do very challenging things. They do it, and we should thank them for that.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for taking the recommendations so seriously, and for raising concerns about the parity of esteem for social housing tenants. We have seen problems in that area so many times, so I thank him for taking those recommendations forward. Will he join me in paying tribute again to the volunteer organisations, including the founding members of Grenfell United, as well as members of other charities and churches who worked tirelessly in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy?
The Prime Minister
A passage in the report highlights two groups: one group is the TMO, the businesses and those charged with responsibility, and the other is those who lived in the tower. Those groups were treated differently before, during and after the tragedy, which relates to the question of esteem that the hon. Lady rightly touches on. We must stop talking about the issue and act on it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
My thoughts today are with the families and loved ones of the 72 people who died so tragically in the fire. As the report identifies, those deaths were entirely “avoidable” and were the result of corporate greed, because profits were put before people. Some 3,000 medium and high-rise buildings are still being monitored by the Government because they are clad in unsafe cladding. Will the Prime Minister state how he will support leaseholders living in those buildings, whose lives are on hold at the moment? I stand in solidarity with the families in support of justice. I hope they do not wait as long as the Hillsborough families.
The Prime Minister
Many premises are being monitored. That needs to continue. We need to bear down on all the relevant authorities to ensure they are safe and give leaseholders the support they need.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Will the Prime Minister help to ensure this type of disaster will not happen again by looking carefully at building control inspection? Since deregulation, such inspection is often not carried out in person but through phone calls and photographs. Poor inspection of works across the UK building industry means other such disasters will happen again and again, unless we look carefully at how our building control inspection works.
The Prime Minister
I agree with that. The way building control inspections were carried out in this case makes for a shocking read in the report. It is particularly grave, but not the only example of such building control inspection. We will look at that as we respond to the report.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the most powerful and heartfelt statement I have ever heard him make, putting the 72 victims of the Grenfell fire and survivors in the community at the heart of the road map going forward. As the Prime Minister said, justice must be speedy, with prosecutions for those who were involved in systemic dishonesty. Justice also means that those responsible for the broader building safety crisis should pay to make buildings safe, so how will the Prime Minister ensure that now happens at pace?
The Prime Minister
Justice needs to be speedy and, in this case, it is important we ensure that it is swift. We should bear in mind it has already taken seven years to get to where we are today, which doubles the need for that speed. All those with responsibility need to take responsibility; I thought the words of one member of the inquiry this morning, about those with responsibility taking the report as a template and guide for the future, were very important. All those with responsibility for building safety includes me, which is why I will take that approach in government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his tone, compassion and understanding, and the seriousness in his voice and words today. I honestly and sincerely believe the Prime Minister speaks for everyone in the House in the way he conveyed the statement, and I thank him for that. On behalf of Democratic Unionist party Members, I convey our collective sympathies to the families. They are never far from our thoughts, even though a number of years have passed. The report catalogued failures. There are similar buildings in Northern Ireland, so will the findings and recommendations of the report be conveyed to the Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly with the urgency required, ever mindful that the Northern Ireland housing executive and others are financially stretched? What help can be given to deliver the much needed improvements across this great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the question in relation to Northern Ireland. Of course we must work with all the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland. I took the early opportunity after the formation of the Government to go to Northern Ireland to make clear that would be the way I will work on all issues. That is particularly important in relation to the safety of people in the place that they live.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I associate myself with the remarks made about thinking about the victims and their families, who are still fighting every day for justice. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring they will see justice through the criminal justice system. The report makes over 50 recommendations and suggestions about the regulatory framework, so will he reassure me that the Government will work closely with local authorities to ensure they have the support they need to respond to any additional regulatory burdens that might be put on them in the coming months and years?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is important that we work on the regulatory framework with local authorities and with all those charged with responsibility so that there is justice in this case, and secondly, that we take the necessary action to ensure that this never happens again.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to changing the culture and behaviour towards council tenants that allowed this tragedy to happen. It is a national scandal. Can he ensure that residents, tenants and professional firefighters on the frontline are heard and listened to? We cannot trust those who caused the tragedy in the first place to put things right.
The Prime Minister
That is an important issue. This case is an example of where those concerned for their safety in the place where they live have made points, put forward issues and raised concerns but not been listened to. That is a characteristic of how not just housing but other aspects of life are dealt with. We must ensure that we listen to those who are most concerned. It is their place, their home, they are entitled to feel safe and secure there, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister so painfully said, the Grenfell fire destroyed lives and ripped families apart, but constituents of mine are suffering, too. They are afraid to go to sleep at night, because they live in buildings that were built more recently than Grenfell, with fire safety risks. The building standards that informed the recladding of Grenfell and the building of more recent blocks of flats were strong on thermal insulation to save energy costs but very weak on fire safety, and their implementation, as we now know from this report, has been even worse. The building regulations of other jurisdictions cover both thermal insulation and fire safety risks. How long will it take for UK building regulations to catch up?
The Prime Minister
That is one issue that we will have to look at in light of the report, but I accept that there are people today in accommodation where they fear for their safety, because of the conditions in which they are living. Having spoken to some of those people, I got a sense of what it is like for them to worry every night about the safety of themselves and their family, particularly those with children.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his commitments today. As he has said, the report makes it clear that the Conservative Government’s obsession with deregulation meant that safety issues were ignored, delayed or disregarded. It says that the Government were well aware of the deadly risk of cladding before the fire, but failed to act. It concludes that all 72 deaths were avoidable.
This morning, Grenfell United—survivors and bereaved families—urged our new Government to break old habits and bring systemic change by both separating Government from corporate lobbying and tackling social and racial injustices and inequalities. Will the Prime Minister undertake this work without delay?
The Prime Minister
I read very carefully what the report said about deregulation. As we go forward from here, we must avoid the habit of simply blaming somebody else for everything and pull together and say that it is our responsibility. We are a new Government. Irrespective of where the failure lay, it is our responsibility now to take this forward to ensure safety. I know that is a sentiment shared across the House and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the approach that he has taken. If we do it in that way, we can do what the survivors, the bereaved, the families and the communities most want, which is to show our determination to ensure that this never happens again.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Today’s report lists a series of terrible failures that let down the Grenfell community. The Grenfell fire affected communities in every part of the UK, and I wish to pass on the thoughts of my constituents in Irvine to the families and loved ones. A fire at a 14-storey block of flats in Irvine in 1999 spread via external cladding. The Garnock Court fire resulted in one fatality and led to changes to Scottish building regulations, which the then local MP fought to have implemented. I hope my right hon. Friend will look at the lessons from the Garnock Court fire as he starts to address this terrible injustice.
The Prime Minister
We must look at this question of external cladding. Some measures have been taken in the past seven years, as I referenced in my statement, but we need to look at this again. The description that I was given when I was at Grenfell Tower of how the fire spread, and the role played by the cladding, was chilling.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Having read the summary of the report, may I say how difficult it has been to contain one’s anger? Like many west London MPs here, I visited the site soon after the fire. In the following months, we met the victims, the families of the victims, the firefighters, the local representatives, and the traumatised call centre operators, some of whom have never recovered. I was castigated then for using the expression “social murder”. This report defines; it was social murder. Exactly as the Prime Minister said, we need urgent action. We have been promised a debate. For that debate, may we have the definitive report for each of our constituencies on what action has been taken, what action will be taken, and what the deadline will be?
May I return to recommendation 113.7 in the report? In the building regulations, we defined higher buildings as above seven storeys or 18 metres. That takes no account of those other properties in which there are vulnerable residents in particular who are now at risk. The recommendation is to urgently review those regulations. May we have a timetable for that review, as it has consequences for many of our constituents?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. On the debate, it is important that as much information as possible is made available and that we are able to deal with the questions that Members of this House have raised. That is why we are looking at the date of that debate. I wanted it to be as soon as possible, but I do not want it to be so quick that Members will be frustrated because they will rightly want information or assurances that need a little bit of working through. I will try to make sure that that happens. The safety of buildings that are not at the specific height is among the issues that we have to consider here. We are all well aware of these very troubling cases, and they have to be part of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
That concludes that very serious statement. I will give those on the Front Bench some time to vacate the Chamber and allow the new Ministers to take their seats.
Budget Responsibility Bill
Wednesday 4th September 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Budget Responsibility Act 2024 View all Budget Responsibility Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 September 2024 - (4 Sep 2024)
16:52 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 109 / Noes: 366 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:09 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 375 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Ghani)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair” or “Chair” are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Announcement of fiscally significant measures
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 9, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) or any changes to the government’s fiscal targets.”
This amendment requires the OBR to produce and publish a section 4(3) report at the time new fiscal rules are announced by the Treasury.
The Chairman
With this is will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment 2, page 1, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) In any case where the Office has acted in accordance with subsection (2), it may notify the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests of the circumstances in any case where it considers those circumstances may be relevant to—
(a) the Ministerial Code, or
(b) the functions of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.”
This amendment enables the OBR to notify the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests where the OBR considers that any instance where the Treasury had not requested a report under section 4A(1) in advance may give rise to consideration of compliance with the Ministerial Code.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) Where the OBR prepares a report in accordance with subsection (1) or (2), it must take account of the impact of the measure or measures on—
(a) the UK’s compliance with, and
(b) the fiscal cost of meeting,
the UK’s net zero target as set in section 1(2) of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
This amendment requires the OBR to report on the impact of fiscally significant measures announced by Government on the UK’s statutory net zero target.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert “or
(b) the measure, or combination of measures, is likely to have an impact on—
(i) the cost of government borrowing,
(ii) interest rates, or
(iii) the rate of growth of gross domestic product.”
This amendment broadens the definition of fiscally significant measures to those which fall below the costing threshold, but have wider fiscal effects, by affecting either the cost of government borrowing, interest rates or rates of economic growth.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 4, at end insert
“or if the condition in subsection (3A) is met.”
See the statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3A) The condition in this subsection is that the measure, or combination of measures, forms part of category of measures with a cumulative impact on—
(a) public sector net debt,
(b) public sector contingent liabilities, or
(c) both,
that exceeds a specified percentage of the gross domestic product for a specified period.
“Specified” means specified in, or determined in accordance with, the Charter for Budget Responsibility”
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the definition of fiscally significant measures to include measures with a cumulative impact on public sector net debt or contingent liabilities when taken together with other measures in the same category, such as public projects with private sector partners.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 16, leave out “28” and insert “56”.
See the statement for Amendment 4.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
“(6A) After the publication of a draft under subsection (6), the Treasury must consult—
(a) the Office for Budget Responsibility,
(b) the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons, and
(c) such other persons as the Treasury considers appropriate.
(6B) When a modified Charter so as to include provision by virtue of this section is laid before Parliament, the Treasury must also lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of consultation under subsection (6A).”
The purpose of this amendment is to impose a requirement on the Treasury to undertake a full consultation and publish the outcome of that consultation prior to revision of the Charter for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 1 stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 10, Title, after “measures” insert
“and of any changes to the government’s fiscal targets”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 9. It would amend the long title of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. May I first take the opportunity to congratulate you on your election? I promise to try not to try your patience over the coming weeks, years and so on, but we will see how things go.
I wish primarily to speak today to amendment 9 and, of course, consequential amendment 10, which effectively seek to ensure that the fiscal lock proposed in the Bill should also include any changes to the fiscal rules and would require the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a report on their effect on public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility was of course constructed by a Conservative Chancellor following the poor forecasting record of the previous Labour Government. Between 2000 and 2010, the then Labour Government’s forecasts for economic growth were out by an average of £13 billion, and their forecasts for the budget deficit three years ahead were out by an average of £40 billion. Their forecasts therefore lacked credibility, and to re-establish confidence and credibility the OBR was created by the Conservative Government.
Labour lacked economic credibility in the past, and I am afraid it still lacks it now. The facts simply do not stand up the false claim that the Government have inherited the worst economic circumstances since the second world war; they transparently have not. Contrary to the rewriting of history that the current Labour Government are attempting, when we took over from Labour back in 2010, inflation was 3.4%. When they took over from us, it was 2.2%. The annual deficit is half what we inherited in 2010, unemployment is about half what it was in 2010, and we handed Labour the fastest economic growth in the G7. The dominant political and economic narrative since the second world war is in fact, as has been widely commented on, that every single Labour Government end up with unemployment higher at the end of their time in power than when they took over from the Conservatives preceding them.
The British public should not be taken for fools. Just because Labour keeps claiming something, that does not mean that it suddenly becomes true, which is why clarity over plans and rules is so important. The fiscal rules are of course restrictions on fiscal policy set by the Government to constrain their own decisions on spending and taxes. The fiscal rules set by the previous Government said that the debt to GDP ratio should be falling within a five-year horizon, and that the ratio of the annual budget deficit to GDP should be below 3% by the end of the same period. Labour’s manifesto for the election proposed the following fiscal rules: balancing the current budget, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues, and that debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast. On the surface, therefore, the debt rules appear to be broadly the same under the new Government. The Government have even said that they have an “ironclad” commitment to reduce Government debt. It is therefore critical what definition of debt is used for the fiscal rules. Clearly, any changes to the fiscal rules are financially significant decisions because they affect how much the Government can borrow and spend.
On Second Reading, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said:
“Our fiscal rules are non-negotiable.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1263.]
Great, but why then has the Chancellor repeatedly failed to rule out that she will change the definition of debt in her fiscal rules to allow, presumably, for massive borrowing? The Government cannot run from the scrutiny that they should be subjected to if they are considering making such a change. We believe that our amendment requiring an OBR report on changes to the fiscal rules is entirely consistent with the Government’s stated policy intent, and should therefore be fairly uncontentious. After all, on Second Reading, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that
“the announcement of a fiscally significant measure should always be accompanied by an independent assessment of its economic and fiscal implications, in order to support transparency and accountability.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1211.]
We agree, and not accepting our amendment would be contrary to those goals, because clearly changing the fiscal rules would be a fiscally significant measure in anybody’s book. Furthermore, the Chief Secretary said that
“fiscal discipline and sound money is the bedrock of our plans.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1213.]
Well, changing the fiscal rules would be changing the foundations and that bedrock.
Transparency and clarity are important in relation to the public finances, because Ministers should never forget that it is not their money that they are spending; it is the public’s money. The public have a right to know how their money is being spent, and government is about making difficult choices with limited resources. With Government spending being above £1.2 trillion per year, the British public recognise that the Government clearly have choices. It is not an endless supply of money, but it is a very, very large amount. In the last few weeks, the new Labour Government chose to spend the public’s money on pay settlements for their union friends rather than on supporting pensioners. Those settlements are estimated to cost about £10 billion. They also chose to spend £8.3 billion on a public energy company and £7.3 billion on a national wealth fund, so far from inheriting a £22-billion black hole, they have actually just spent £25 billion creating one within their first few weeks of coming to power.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech on the importance of being responsible with our public finances. Much of the Bill is concerned with responsibility and transparency. Does he know whether the Government published an impact assessment when they took away the winter fuel allowance?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. My understanding is that the Government have not published an impact assessment, as would normally be the case for something with such a significant impact. I think that speaks to the whole narrative that we are hearing from the Government: claiming one thing when the facts speak differently. As I said, far from inheriting a £22 billion black hole, they have actually spent, or committed to spending, an additional £25 billion. That is a choice that they made, so the claim that the Labour Government are having to take the winter fuel allowance away from millions of pensioners as a response to unexpected financial constraints simply does not stack up against the facts, or indeed the words of the Chancellor herself, who on 25 March 2014—yes, a decade ago—said:
“We are the party who have said that we will cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and means-test that benefit to save money”.—[Official Report, 25 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 174.]
That is a direct quote in Hansard from the current Chancellor, so no, the Government’s restriction of winter fuel payments is not a response to financial circumstance; it is a long-established, clearly stated Labour policy intent—a deliberate policy choice, but a policy that they conveniently forgot to tell the public about in the run-up to the last election.
I hope, however, that the Government can be straight with the public on this point about the fiscal rules, accept the amendment that we are proposing, and provide assurance to all Members and the outside world that there is no sleight of hand here. We want the Bill to work as they say it is intended to, and to include financially significant decisions, such as on the levels of Government borrowing and the fiscal rules. I would therefore appreciate it if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in his wind-up that the Government do not intend to change the definition of debt in their fiscal rules or practise some accounting trick to hide the level of Government borrowing, and that they do indeed wish to be clear and transparent about the public finances. If Labour Members vote against our amendment, it will merely prove that they are planning to change their fiscal rules in the Budget to borrow more money, increase debt, and run away from independent OBR scrutiny—the very opposite of the stated intent of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
I call Dr Jeevun Sandher to make his maiden speech.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to give my maiden speech in this House. Like every Member across this House, it is the greatest honour, privilege and responsibility of my life to represent my community of Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages. I rise at the most difficult moment for our communities and our country since the second world war, when many feel despondency, despair and anger. I know that every Member across this House wants our communities to succeed and to contribute to our national success. That is what my community has done before and will do again, with hope and determination.
My story does not begin in Loughborough. I was not born there—unlike my neighbours, who are now my friends, and who have made it my home. My story instead begins in rural Punjab, 4,000 miles away, where my father was born almost 70 years ago. His chances of dying before his fifth birthday were one in four. Today, a child born in the same place is around nine times less likely to die. That is what economic growth means. It means less suffering, it means less misery and it means less death. That is why I became an economist: to build prosperity and to lessen misery.
I learned my trade in the Treasury and then went to work in Somaliland, one of the poorest nations on Earth, where I helped to write its economic policy, its budgets and its national development plan. That was where I saw the horrors of climate change lead to drought, hunger and death, but also where I learned that even in the darkest of hours and the most difficult of moments we can build prosperity.
Now I stand here as the elected Member of Parliament for my community. It says something remarkable about our nation that the fact that I, the son of immigrants, am standing in this Chamber is in and of itself unremarkable. It speaks to our common culture—a culture forged of different backgrounds, a culture that not only rejects the violence we saw over the summer, but completely rejects its reasoning too.
My election represents an historic first for my community. I am a member of an under-represented minority—I am, of course, the first Member of Parliament elected by the men and women of Loughborough to have a beard. To the organisers of the beard of the year competition I say, “Call me.” Luckily for me, my dad is not eligible for that particular competition. I know that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has won the award several times; I hope he does not mind me winning the prize this time, as long as I let him win the argument.
My predecessor in this place, Jane Hunt, was not a contender for that award, but no one can doubt her commitment to team Loughborough, and every single Member across this House and across my community will wish her the very best, especially as she has recovered from cancer. Her predecessor, Baroness Morgan, has talents that are well known both in this and the other place. Before her was my good friend and mentor Andy Reed. Members who know Andy will know that he is still a leading figure in sports policy, and they will also know that Andy is the nicest man in British politics. It is his character that I hope to live up to in this place.
However, I rise to speak at the most difficult time for our communities and our nation since 1945. Our communities are in crisis. Wages in my constituency are £10,000 lower than they would be had we grown at new Labour rates. The divides caused by deindustrialisation have widened from cracks into chasms, with young men who used to leave school and get good jobs now 20% less likely to get any job; in our most deprived neighbourhoods, life expectancy falling before the pandemic; more than any fact or figure, the despair, the despondency and the anger; across and beyond our shores, war in Europe once more, with democracy in danger; and, most seriously of all, a planet that is burning.
For my community, this was the hottest summer we have ever known, followed by the worst flooding we have ever seen, destroying homes. The Prime Minister and I saw that destruction when we visited the homes of Ian and Alan. No one should wake up in the morning to find their home destroyed by flooding, but that will only become more common in the years ahead. What we do in the next decade will determine the fate of our communities, of democracy and of our planet. Either we will rise to this moment, build prosperity for all, protect democracy and stop emitting carbon, or everything we hold dear will crumble and fall.
Previous generations have shown us that we can rise to this moment that threatens us. Our country stood alone against fascism in Europe and won. I think today of my constituent William Williams, 104 years old, who flew Spitfires in the war. As his generation rose to their moment, so can we. My community have shown me that we can. When the waters came and the floods rose, my constituents Caz and Carl did not pause to think if they could help, but only how they could help. They organised collections, they provided refuge, and they looked after perfect strangers. It is their spirit that I carry into this place—asking not if, but how. How can we build prosperity and protect our planet from burning? We can do so by investing in a green transition that creates good jobs and gets wages rising for the people and places left behind when the factories closed. That is what we can achieve, and we are seeing it work already in the United States.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Ghani)
A very strong maiden speech, without a script in hand—your parents will be proud.
Andrew Griffith
It is a delight as ever to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) on his maiden speech and his kind comments about his predecessor Jane Hunt, a great colleague of this House. It was one of my great pleasures in my previous role as Minister for science and research to visit the fine university he now represents; I wish him and them well, and I wish him all the best of luck with those on his Front Bench in procuring the financial support he seeks.
This is a disreputable Bill, if we are brutally honest. It is a piece of political theatre, which all of us on both sides of this House should think very strongly about giving our support to. This history of this place is of legislation made in haste, which this House subsequently repents at leisure. I say this in all seriousness and in the spirit of this place: at a time when there is low trust in politics, did our constituents—did the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, when they trooped to the ballot box and returned him to this place only weeks ago—seriously expect that our role would be to give away even more of our responsibilities? Can any of us, hand on heart, say that our constituents know what and who the OBR is? Did the electors of Bristol North West, Hampstead and Highgate, Richmond Park or, indeed, Arundel and South Downs send us to this place only to give away our duties and responsibility to the unnamed, unknown and unelected officials—well-meaning, no doubt—of the Office for Budget Responsibility? Hands on the face of a stopped clock are sometimes more accurate than the OBR forecasts, as they are at least correct twice a day for sure.
In truth, this legislation, put together at breakneck speed, has more holes than a Swiss cheese. If we look at clause 1(3), who decides the “costing”? Proposed new section 4A exempts any measure that is intended, at the time of its introduction, to be temporary. Members of this House will be familiar with the fact that income tax itself, one of the largest ever fiscal measures, was intended to be temporary; perhaps the Minister will address that fact when he winds up. Income tax was introduced by Pitt the Younger in 1799 as a temporary measure. Well, here we are, 225 years later, and that temporary measure is still going extremely strong.
Who defines what is and is not a fiscal measure—a measure with a potential impact on the GDP of this country? Many things decided in this House will have a direct or indirect impact on the GDP of this country; the decision by Tony Blair to take us to war without a vote in this House undoubtedly had an impact on our GDP. Decisions to introduce a four-day working week—if this House so chooses to make them, as is its right—would have a material impact on the GDP of this country. The Centre for Business and Economic Research estimates that every bank holiday costs this country a sum approaching £3.6 billion. Three, four, five or six bank holidays add up to a 1% impact on GDP, which I speculate may be the threshold for the OBR to intervene.
On trade deals, if those on the Government Benches fulfilled their ambition to realign with Europe—to federate and once again abrogate our trade to Europe—that would potentially have a material fiscal impact on GDP. There are very few domains of this House—very few of the decisions that our constituents have sent us here to legislate and decide on their behalf—that would not potentially fall foul of this rule.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I will delight the hon. Gentleman, because, as I am sure he saw on the amendment paper, I have tabled an amendment that would look at trade deals. One of the reasons why I felt compelled to do that, and explore this question that he raises about the economic impact, is that while he was in government and, indeed, a Treasury Minister, the Government did not publish any information for the very trade deals he is talking about. I will always welcome a sinner who repenteth but, for the avoidance of doubt, is he saying that he now believes there should be independent scrutiny of things such as the trade and co-operation agreement?
Andrew Griffith
It is good to have a proper debate. I certainly think that if we want and seek good government—which, like the human condition, is not a perfect state, but a state that we should seek constantly to perfect—the highest levels of transparency and the very important exercise in Government publishing of impact assessments when they make material decisions, as required by Cabinet Office guidance, are things that the whole House should join hands and agree on. It is one of the reasons why I asked my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), whether the Government had published an impact assessment on their callous decision to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from so many pensioners. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) will well know that the process of trade deals undergoes extensive scrutiny in this House, and I took one of those trade deals through that process of scrutiny in a former life.
I will conclude, because I simply want to alert hon. Members to what they are potentially doing as they seek to support this Bill. It is not for partisan or political advantage, but about the important role of Parliament, which has been litigated many times in this Chamber and in debate.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
Unsurprisingly, I have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speeches on a number of occasions, and I agree with quite a lot of what he is saying about transparency. Does he agree that the burden of his argument is that we cannot make a Government behave better or govern more effectively by quango? This quango was set up by George Osborne to trap an incoming Labour Government and restrict and slow them down, and it is an odd thing that we see this quango being gilded.
Andrew Griffith
As ever, the hon. Member makes an important and weighty contribution. He is exactly right about the direction of travel. On both sides of the House, we will all find our own particular point on the envelope when it comes to the balance around organisations that can hold us to account and, in particular, hold a mirror to Government and ensure that this House acts with the best, most accurate and well-meaning data.
My core point is that we are sent here by our constituents. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough, who has been sent here on behalf of his constituents and has given a fine speech today, but I do not believe—he may intervene and correct me—that the citizens of Loughborough, whether they voted for Jane Hunt or for him, intended that one of the very first actions he and we would take as legislators would be to award more of our powers and place more fetters on ourselves. This is the right Chamber for accountability. We should hold ourselves to account; we have a number of ways in which to do that to ourselves. The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) makes a very real point about quangos, arm’s length bodies and how we hold ourselves to account.
That is my point. I understand that many colleagues wish to get in. I support the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham, because it is quite right that we have rules. I was an accountant by training, and the first thing we learn—whether someone is an accountant or in performance sport—is that we play by the rules as they are; we do not seek to rig the rules in our favour.
Ms Creasy
It is a pleasure to speak in the same debate as the maiden speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I am sure other speeches are coming that will show just how impressive the new generation of MPs is across the House.
It is also a joy to follow the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), because I have always enjoyed the experience of listening to him. When he was a Treasury Minister in the previous Government, I watched him, debated with him and tried to encourage him to take on the buy now, pay later lenders—that is related to what I will say about legal loan sharking. But I have to be honest: being lectured by former Conservative Ministers about fiscal probity is a bit like being lectured by Toad of Toad Hall about safe driving, given the experiences of many of our constituents, which have led to the need for this legislation.
I put on record my support for this legislation, because frankly anybody who has had to renegotiate a mortgage since the Liz Truss Budget knows exactly why it is needed and why we must protect the British public from the consequences of bad decision making at a national level. As we saw in many examples under the previous Administration, the public have paid the price for that and will continue to do so.
Andrew Griffith
Of course, the legislation does not fetter previous Governments, but it would fetter the discretion of the hon. Lady’s own Front Benchers. In that context, does she not have the same confidence in her Front Bench that many others seem to enjoy?
Ms Creasy
I am a bit disappointed that the hon. Member did not seek to call me Ratty. I am also quite struck by the fact that he, a former Conservative Treasury Minister, rises not to hold himself accountable for the consequences of decisions made by the previous Government, or indeed to defend them, but simply to say, “You will be held to a higher fiscal standard.” We on the Labour Benches welcome a higher fiscal standard; that is the purpose of the legislation. Political decisions will still be made, but we will make them with the benefit of independent information. He will know that there were many debates in the previous Parliament, and indeed in those before it, in which independent information about and verification of the economic impact of policies mattered but were missing. Indeed, he mentions trade deals, which are an example of where we did not have independent information. I will comment on that only briefly, because my amendment has not been selected—he will be as disappointed as I am about that.
Ms Creasy
Yes. But in that time, many of us have had persistent concerns, and one of mine has always been the private finance initiative. The Government are asking all of us to make and support some very tough decisions because of the economic mess that the country now finds itself in. My view is that we must look at all outgoings in that process. If somebody came to a constituency surgery because they had multiple outstanding loans and could not pay their rent, we would look at the debts that they held. That is the challenge with private finance: it is the legal loan-sharking of the public sector. Amendments 6 and 7 are about the process of getting a grip on our debts and ensuring that we learn from the damage that private finance has done.
Let us be clear: nobody can absolve themselves from private finance. Governments of all persuasions have sought to use that process—the ability to put only the repayments on the books, rather than the substantial cost of borrowing. That started under John Major; yes, there were multiple PFIs under the previous Labour Government; and indeed, the previous Conservative Government continued to use private finance until 2018. That is why, as of February this year, there are still 700 PFI schemes representing a capital value of £57 billion, but for which we will pay back £151 billion in the years ahead. We are asking pensioners to pay more for heating their homes, but we should be asking how we can pay less for the private finance debts that we have built up.
Private finance was about being able to build things such as schools and hospitals. Anybody who has an outstanding PFI debt in their constituency, or a school or hospital that urgently needs rebuilding, such as Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency, understands the importance of being able to access private finance. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying through my amendments that we should never work with the private sector; I am saying that PFI was a catastrophically bad deal and that, cumulatively, it would meet the legislation’s targets of 1% of GDP, so it is a fiscally significant policy. My amendments are about trying to understand how we will deal with cumulative debt and cumulatively fiscally significant policies.
Graham Stringer
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. As a member of the even older guard than hers—
Graham Stringer
I am certainly the old guard from the start of the previous Labour Government. That is relevant because I had a discussion at the time with the then Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, about the cost of PFIs for hospitals. His answer was succinct: “If you want the hospitals, you have to go down the PFI route.” He said that because the Treasury rules were so rigid about finding money for socially needed projects—hospitals in that case—the Government had to work around them, at what would eventually be a huge cost to the taxpayer. There is a warning there about rigid rules and not dealing with reality.
Ms Creasy
It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I agree with him not just about his football team but in his analysis. The legislation is about having better fiscal rules and tougher constraints when Governments make decisions. We saw with the Liz Truss Budget how catastrophic those decisions can be.
Many Members will have come across PFI in their constituencies, but it is worth putting on the record just how big it is, because that is relevant to the legislation. We are talking about 700 projects, but each project can be hundreds of individual buildings. One of those 700 projects is made up of 80 schools, for example, which shows the scale that we are talking about. About half of PFIs are held between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. That is how we built desperately needed schools and hospitals, but the cost is absolutely critical.
Some NHS trusts are now spending 13% of their total budget on PFI repayments—£2 billion a year for some. In practical terms, that means that some trusts are spending more to repay what is essentially a payday loan for the public sector than they are spending on drugs for their patients. It is a huge drain on our public finances. In 2020, during the pandemic, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust paid £66 million to service its PFI commitments—the same amount that it spent on lab equipment, surgical tools and personal protective equipment. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has already paid out £200 million in dividends to the company that owns its PFI, so the money is not just going to repay a debt for building a hospital; it is going out in pure profit to those companies. That is why I draw the parallel with payday lenders and buy now, pay later companies: once you are hooked in, you have to keep paying the debt.
It is not just a problem in the NHS. Hanson academy in Bradford has reached a debt of £4.16 million because of its PFI debt. It is now referred to as the UK’s “orphan” school because nobody wants to run it or take it over, given its financial position. Liverpool city council pays £4 million a year for Parklands high school, which was, again, built under PFI but is no longer needed because of falling school rolls. The council has roughly £42 million left to pay back on that contract for an empty, dead building. The equity solutions company that owns it has posted profits of £340,000 from that project this year alone.
PFI companies have made £111 million in pre-tax profit from education projects alone. That is about £800,000 per project, and the equivalent of 5,5000 new teachers’ salaries. The companies took on the risk of those deals to rebuild our public infrastructure, but the reality is that we do not let schools and hospitals go bust, so they took on the ability to print money. That is what the deals are doing. I will wager that every new and returning MP has had a conversation with someone in local government, a local hospital or a local school who talks about the damage that PFI is doing to their budgets, as if it is non-negotiable.
My amendments are about changing that culture. One challenge is that we have let those companies run rampant. That does not mean that we should not work with the private sector; it means that we should learn lessons, and I think we could learn some very simple ones. For a start, a lot of the companies are incorporated in overseas territories, which raises questions about the amount of tax that they are paying on those deals. Tax was originally part of the Treasury assessment of the deals, which was why working in that way was considered good value for money, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) was told that it was the best way to get a school or hospital.
We could also learn from payday lending by capping what the companies pay. After all, we cap the returns on defence projects. It makes no economic or ethical sense that we cap what can be earned from a military contract, but when someone builds a school or a hospital, they have free rein.
Above all, we need to know how much we owe, because even the Infrastructure and Projects Authority within Government could not get a grip on the total reality of our PFI commitments to date. That is partly because this has been done at a local government level, through devolution and in silos within companies, but it seems a very simple thing: even if those debts are being held overseas, the people paying them are very much here. In Northampton, there are 42 schools costing £30 million per annum, including £4.2 million in pre-tax profits in 2021-22, and Northampton’s budgets as a local authority are in a very difficult position right now. The firm that owns all those schools is based in Guernsey. In Birmingham, 11 schools are part of the Birmingham Schools Partnership, owned by Innisfree. Innisfree owns 260 schools across this country, as well as my local hospital in Whipps Cross. It is based in Jersey and is making millions of pounds in profit from these deals. We have never consolidated those loans to ask ourselves whether we could renegotiate them as a country and therefore claw some money back, because we do not know who we owe what to, or how much it is going to cost.
Amendments 6 and 7 deal with the challenges posed by the threshold of this legislation. It is absolutely right to set a threshold for what is fiscally significant, and individual PFIs would not go anywhere near a threshold of 1% of GDP, which is about £28 billion. However, when we add them up, it is very clear from what we already know about our PFI commitments that they do. As such, these amendments are intended to probe the Government about how we deal with debts and spending that might not meet that threshold individually, but might do so cumulatively, and to look at what we can do in the future to make sure that if we work with the private sector—again, I am not saying that we should never do so; I am saying that we should learn from PFI—we make better decisions. After all, this legislation is about making better-informed, independent decisions.
That is why I also tabled amendment 8, to learn the lessons from trade deals. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs is right: the Government’s decision to go for the trade and co-operation agreement—the hardest of Brexits—has cost us an estimated 4% of GDP, so again, that would be a fiscally significant decision. It would be as catastrophic as that Liz Truss Budget—indeed, many of us can see that it has been—but we did not have an independent assessment. Amendment 6 and amendment 7, which is an enabling amendment, would ensure that we have an independent assessment of cumulative spending looking at these issues.
I know that the Minister is as interested as I am in what we can do to tackle the drain that PFI represents and work better with the private sector. I hope that this legislation and the concept of putting PFI on the books is the start of a conversation about better public spending, and I hope that Toad of Toad Hall will recognise that maybe this time it is good that they are in the passenger seat.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I will speak in favour of amendments 1 to 4, which were tabled in my name. Once again, I welcome this Bill and this Government’s intent to rebuild trust with the financial markets and across our economy as a whole. The Liberal Democrats are optimistic about the new Government’s stated commitment to building a strong platform for economic growth, particularly after years of Conservative turmoil. I remain hopeful that this Bill can support fiscal responsibility and transparency and help prevent a repeat of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget. The amendments tabled in my name would strengthen the legislation so that that aim can be achieved.
I welcome the concern that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) has shown for my constituents in Richmond Park and their thoughts about this legislation, but I wonder where his concern for my constituents was when the Government of which he was a part cheered on, championed and voted for that disastrous mini-Budget that so undermined our stable economy, to the detriment of the wellbeing of individuals, communities and businesses.
Liberal Democrats understand how much our constituents have suffered from the increase in mortgage payments, higher fuel bills and escalating food prices. We understand the disastrous effects of the chaos and uncertainty wrought by the previous Conservative Government in their horrendous mismanagement of the economy, and we know that future prosperity can only be built upon a firm foundation. We know the heavy burden that our constituents continue to feel in their pockets and their personal finances, and we know that they deserve better.
As I have previously acknowledged, the broad positive response that this Bill has evoked across the business and finance sector is indicative of the desire for stability, and we welcome the engagement from economists—such as the new hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who I wish well in the beard of the year contest—and industry experts who advise of the beneficial impact this Bill will have on confidence in the public finances. We have carefully scrutinised the details of the Bill to make sure it will achieve its intended aims.
In particular, we have looked closely at the threshold for fiscally significant measures, which will be set at 1% of GDP or approximately £30 billion, and whether the proposed fiscal lock could be circumvented by Governments announcing major changes that fall just below that threshold. Although we understand that the bar has been set relatively high to prevent a large-scale irresponsible fiscal event such as the disastrous mini-Budget, we are aware of the limitations this places on the Bill, especially when it comes to measures that might have relatively small up-front costs to the Government but significant indirect fiscal or economic effects. I therefore ask Treasury Ministers whether a GDP measure alone can adequately capture the impact on the economy of a spending or taxation measure, and whether the Government should examine the possibility of using additional criteria when setting the threshold.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Ghani)
I thought I would offer some tips to colleagues in the Chamber. If you are bobbing, you will be called. If you are on the list, but are not bobbing, you are indicating to the Chair or the Speaker that you no longer wish to be called, so if you hope to be called, bob throughout the debate. If you are on the list and committed to bobbing, but leave the Chamber, you are indicating to the Chair or the Speaker that you no longer wish to be a priority on the list. However, you can speak to the Chair or the Speaker and ask permission to leave and return, and you will then remain where you were in the priority list. Unless Members stand, I do not know whether they wish to contribute to the debate, so who wishes to bob?
Several hon. Members rose—
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms Ghani. I start by commending my hon. Friends for their impassioned speeches, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). He will be pleased to know that I will not be a contender this year in the competition that he mentioned. Maybe later, menopause depending.
It is a huge honour to stand before you today as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North. This moment is not lost on me; I am filled with immense emotion at the thought of representing the place where everyone I love lives. Portsmouth is a city rich in history, innovation and, most importantly, community spirit and pride. It is also a place of firsts. Throughout our city’s storied history, we have been pioneers in many fields, be it shipbuilding, maritime trade or cultural advancement. Portsmouth has always led the way, and it is that spirit of innovation that I intend to champion while in this House.
I am deeply humbled to make my maiden speech in this debate highlighting the importance of fiscal standards, because during the election campaign so many people told me that their mortgage had gone through the roof, or that they had lost the ability to buy or rent their first home, or indeed any home, because of the actions of the last Government.
I understand personally what it is like when a full-time job does not even cover the bills. My gramps was a train driver. He taught me the importance of hard work and public service. He introduced me to the trade union movement and to the Labour party, which I am proud to say have been at the centre of my adult life. My mum was a factory seamstress and my dad was a plumber and then a police officer. As a kid, times were tough, but our house was always full of love, humour and determination. My dad worked three jobs and my mum set about making childhood the very best it could be. My gramps navigated the tracks with precision and care, my mum sewed with love, and my dad served his community. I know I will bring the same attitude to my time in this House, because the opportunity here is so very precious.
Like so many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, I was the first in my family to go to university and the first to become a teacher, but thankfully not the last to enter what I still deem to be the very best profession in the world. The right education really does empower young people and give them belief and the opportunity to succeed, whatever their background and circumstances. I am so very proud to be part of a Government who will bring down the barriers to opportunity and tackle child poverty, working across Departments to ensure that all kids get the best start in life.
Having been a teacher for 24 years, I know that not everyone has the start in life that I feel privileged to have had. Being allowed to try things and fail was a great lesson. My working-class background means that I sometimes seem a bit impatient. This is because I know that people from my background must fight harder, and do not often get a second chance, so they have to seize every opportunity as it arises. As an MP, I want to champion children and young people from all backgrounds across my city, so that they are given every chance to succeed and fulfil their potential, whatever that may be and wherever that may take them. The children and young people in Portsmouth deserve nothing less.
Portsmouth, as I have said, is a city of firsts. The first dry dock in the world was built there in 1495. The first ragged school was established there in the name of John Pounds in 1818. We were the first to have a steam railway in 1837, and the first co-operative society in Britain was set up there in 1796 by dockyard workers fed up with being ripped off by local tradesmen. The first oil-fired HMS Queen Elizabeth was built there in 1913; the second ship is very close to my heart. In 1956, the first football league game played under floodlights took place there; it was Portsmouth versus Newcastle. In 2024, the Portsmouth women’s football club turned professional for the first time. Another first is the nursery on Whale Island’s naval base; it is pioneering a brilliant programme to help children deal with separation and the unique challenges of having a parent in the military who is serving away.
Portsmouth also produced the first female Secretary of State for Defence, and as I raise this first, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor. Penny Mordaunt’s service to our city, and particularly her role in the coronation of our King, is to be celebrated. In this House she had many roles in Government. She has always championed the Royal Navy, and from what I hear, she loved her time in the parliamentary hairdressers’. However, the sword now passes to me, and I will continue her lead as I champion our Royal Navy and our great city, both here and at home.
Now for my final first for our great city. For the first time in our city’s history, both Portsmouth MPs are Labour MPs. We build on the work of our predecessors: Lord Frank Judd; Sarah McCarthy-Fry; and my very dear friend, mentor and freeman of our city, Syd Rapson. Together, my good friend the new Minister with responsibility for early education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), and I will work night and day to be champions of change for the city we call home, Portsmouth.
I am so very proud of the positive campaign we ran in Portsmouth North. We unashamedly focused on the need for opportunity and for real change. I want to put on record my thanks to the many people who helped me get here, including the Pompey Belles, my amazing family of 17, friends and the dozens of volunteers from Portsmouth Labour and beyond.
As I begin my journey in this House, I know that the need for change has never been so great. As this debate highlights, after 14 years of Tory rule, there are so many uncertainties for the people in my city. People are struggling; the money just does not go far enough. Schools are underfunded and understaffed. Appointments in primary care, the NHS and dentistry are, in some areas, almost impossible to get. Youth services outside the voluntary sector stretch only to offering support with probation. Our high streets are a mess, and housing is in complete chaos.
However, not everything is about money and pay. This is about pride. Pompey people are proud people. They do not shout about successes, unless they are in football. They rarely grumble—equally, unless it is about football. Many of them just get their heads down, roll up their sleeves and get on with it, and many feel betrayed and let down by those who should have been there for them. For some, trust in politicians has disappeared, and I can understand why. People on the doorstep and in the street are wary and fed up with broken promises. Many feel alone, isolated and betrayed. Coming from one of the most trusted professions in the country to one of the least, I get it. I know that, as the MP for Portsmouth North, the chance for opportunity and real change lies with me—real change, that people can see, feel and be part of; positive change that they can proudly shout about. As Alan Ball said,
“This is Portsmouth, people went to war from this city”.
It is a city that deserves the very best, and I aim to give my very best in representing and serving it.
What of the city of Portsmouth? We officially turn 100 years old in 2026, and a raft of famous figures have helped shape our city, including Charles Dickens, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and James Callaghan, a Labour Prime Minister in whose honour I hope next year to secure a blue plaque. As rich in culture as our city is, it is also full of unsung people who should be right up there with the famous people I listed. These include—this is in no way an exhaustive list—Shamila from Portsmouth City of Sanctuary, Roni at Pamodzi, Isabelle from Loaves of Love, Laura at STEMunity and Mandy, an award-winning community volunteer. They are just a few of the people in my city making it great.
I feel extremely privileged to have seven magnificent wards in my constituency, and to have lived, worked or had family and friends in every single one of them. They are all special and unique in their own right, from Paulsgrove, Drayton and Farlington to Cosham, Hilsea and Nelson, and Copnor and Baffins. They are also all very much Pompey, and when you walk down the street it would not be uncommon to hear, “Oi, mush, don’t be a squinny”, or “Oi, you loon”, or “din”.
As a whole, Portsmouth North is made up of those magnificent seven wards, with 70,000 constituents, 35 schools, our brilliant Queen Alexandra hospital, 11 GP practices, hundreds of charities, small, family-run, large, regional and national businesses, a municipal and thriving international ferry port, seven allotments, 27 pubs, one mobile and four static libraries, a shoreline, the best view in the world to watch the sun rise or set at Portsdown hill with a cracking burger van, a pond, a marshland, a forest—albeit a mini one—and the training ground for the football club who are simply the best. As a season ticket holder and a trust board member, it is sad to say that Fratton Park resides in the south of my city, but I get the brilliantly named John Jenkins training ground.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Ghani)
That speech will delight every corner of Portsmouth North.
I call Dave Doogan.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and that rundown of her fantastic constituency. I want to go there now that I have heard about it, although she might be surprised to know that I am quite familiar with that part of the world around Portsmouth North, Fareham, Gosport, Hayling Island and Southsea. It is a beautiful part of the world, and while it cannot compete with Scotland in scenery, it certainly wins the day when it comes to weather in the summertime. She might also be surprised to know that there is a fairly high concentration of Pompey supporters in Perthshire. That is a legacy of the Royal Naval aircraft workshops outside Perth, when people used to go down to the Royal Naval aircraft yard in Gosport, and picked up a loyalty to Pompey from there. I offer many congratulations, not least on a fantastic maiden speech but also on those exceptional shoes.
I am concerned, indeed troubled as many people will be, about the role of the Treasury and Chancellor in the last couple of months. We are here to talk about budget responsibility, and I wonder what answer we would get if we were to ask the 80% of pensioners on these islands who are about to be stripped of their winter fuel payment what they think is responsible about that budget intervention. We could ask the millions living in poverty across these island—a disgrace in and of itself—what they think about budget responsibility in their lives, now double scuppered by Labour’s two-child cap. We could ask the millions of working poor across these islands, who are trying to do right by their children, their employer, and just pay their bills to get by, and who put their kids to bed every night and then sit up all night worrying about everything, what difference this fiscal lock will make to their lives.
The Chancellor’s first two acts on taking up her role was to make life harder for the poorest families in society who have the least. Once she had dispatched them, she turned her fire on pensioners, removing their winter fuel allowance. Austerity 2.0—it does not matter to Scotland whether austerity comes in a Labour or Tory wrapper, it is still as caustic. That is relevant because the Chancellor wants us to believe that the Bill and the fiscal lock will make everything okay, but it does not. The Office for Budget Responsibility will take no view on the qualitative merits or otherwise of any Treasury decision, but merely on the quantitative dimension in fiscal terms. There are no locks in the Bill to protect the people of these islands from this Labour Chancellor.
We hear ad nauseam that the Chancellor had no choice in any of these actions, and the worst inheritance since the war, and it goes on and on. Well:
“The numbers may be a little bit worse than they thought at the time, and I think there were some things that were hidden from view, but the overall picture over the next four or five years is very, very similar to what we knew before the election.”
Those are not my words, but those of Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. If that is not good enough, the SNP warned throughout the election that if Labour stuck to Tory spending plans, taxes would rise and/or budgets would be cut, and here we are. The SNP even challenged Labour in Scotland on that point during the election, and the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, said,
“read my lips: no austerity under Labour”.
He is not saying that now is he, because he cannot. Perhaps the Chancellor, or those on her Front Bench, can advise us about whether Mr Sarwar was having a stumble with the truth that day, or whether they had forgotten to let their branch office in Scotland in on the plan. Despite all that, the Chancellor and her Treasury Front Bench persist in their claims about a £22 billion black hole to defend their indefensible attacks on the poorest in society. It is unacceptable, and the Bill, if enacted, will do nothing to protect communities from that.
I am also troubled by the language that those on the Treasury Front Bench seek to use to accrue some form of disproportionate credit for bringing forward the Bill. At its core, the Bill is nothing more than an additional provision to the existing Act, and the exaggerated language around it exposes the weakness of the Government’s position on this fiscal lock. Nothing is either locked in or locked out by the Bill. The OBR cannot stop any Budget or fiscal adjustment, good, bad or indifferent. That is Parliament’s role, as other right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out. On Second Reading I pointed that out to the Minister, who declined to concede on the absolute fact that the position is as I have just set out. I hope he has had a chance to reflect on the so-called fiscal lock, which is nothing more than an administrative assessment of Treasury plans on which nothing is contingent. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said that she is keen for those on the Treasury Front Bench to be held to a higher fiscal standard. Fair enough, but the Bill will not do that. This is in abstract the narrowest one-dimensional protection from bad fiscal policy.
Labour Members are seemingly addicted—the Bill evidences this—to some sort of pound shop exaggeration, and a troubling reliance on hyperbole when detailing something profoundly ordinary. The fiscal lock and the Bill will not protect the devolved nations and their budgets from the austerity of the Labour Front Bench. Before the general election, when Labour in Wales was facing NHS budget pressures, the now Secretary of State said that
“all roads lead to the Tories”
and Westminster, in accordance with those budget pressures. Now, after the election, we have a Labour Government, the SNP in Scotland is facing those same budget pressures, and it is the SNP’s fault. They cannot have it both ways. They have got the job and they need to own it.
The Chancellor claimed that the SNP should raise income taxes to pay for her cut to the winter fuel allowance in Scotland. The cheek of it! I remind those on the Treasury Front Bench that 70% of taxes raised in Scotland go directly to the Treasury. We have paid our dues, and shame on the Chancellor for trying to get Scottish taxpayers to pay twice to compensate for her axe wielding. The double standards of it all are staggering. She wants the Scottish Government to raise income taxes in Scotland, which is precisely what she refused to do ahead of the UK general election. Why will she not mirror the Scottish Government’s progressive income tax regime to increase taxes slightly on those of us who are better off, and reduce taxes slightly for those on the lowest incomes? That would raise nearly £16 billion for the Treasury. If she had done that and followed the SNP Scottish Government’s lead, she would not have had to attack our pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. A significant element of budget responsibility is ensuring that people own their decisions and their own mess. Labour will find that SNP Members are keen to help them in that pursuit. In summary, there is nothing particularly to object to in this inherently ordinary and transactional provision in the Bill, except for the behaviour of the Government advancing it.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Ghani)
I call Will Stone to make his maiden speech.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms Ghani, and congratulations on your position. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on her inspiring speech. I feel like I know her constituency a little better now, and I commend all those who have delivered their maiden speeches today and in recent weeks. You have all been fantastic.
It is truly an honour for me to make my maiden speech in a debate on budget responsibility, and I am proud to be elected in this new Labour Government—a Government committed to fiscal responsibility, credibility and accountability. We will ensure that taxpayers’ money is managed and spent wisely, not recklessly as the previous Administration did. I have the absolute pleasure of representing Swindon North, the town where I was born, raised and am proud to call my home. I am also proud of the fact that I am the first Member of Parliament in Swindon North’s history to have been born in the town.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Justin Tomlinson, who served as the Member of Parliament for North Swindon for 14 years. Justin was a ferocious campaigner and he also supported many local community groups and was incredibly passionate about football, namely our local club, Supermarine FC. While we do not align politically, Justin has my respect, so I thank him for his service.
I would also like to mention another former Member of Parliament for Swindon: one of my mentors, the Labour peer Lord Michael Wills. I have learned so much from Michael. Even though he is going through an incredibly tough time with his health, he has always been there to support and guide me with his expert knowledge. Michael is not only a top-notch politician, but a published author of crime novels. I only recently found that out, but I guess it is not too much of a surprise, considering he was once a Minister of State for Justice. I am truly privileged to follow in his footsteps. If I am half the parliamentarian he was, I will have done Swindon proud. I hope the House will join in wishing him a speedy recovery, and I hope to repay his trust in the Chamber.
I am the first Brazilian jiu-jitsu black-belt to be elected to Parliament, and I used to run my own academy. Ms Ghani, I promise this is somewhat relevant. When I left the Army, I had offers to teach Brazilian jiu-jitsu across the world, from Abu Dhabi to Arizona, but I picked Swindon. I am often asked, “Why did you choose Swindon?”, but it is an easy answer for me: I love Swindon. I love my hometown. It is a wonderful town built on industry and is full of passion and hope. Our history is a proud history of reinvention. We started life as a farming town with a focus on pig markets, then we transitioned and became a hub for the railways in the 19th century. Generations of railway workers and their families benefited from the cradle-to-grave healthcare that is rumoured to have inspired the great NHS. As technology developed, so did Swindon, and we became home to the likes of Rover, Honda and Mini, but what is next?
We are at a pivotal point in history for my town. Where does Swindon go next? My hope is that it will go as it always has: into the future, at the forefront of new technologies and green technologies. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) hears that. It is my mission to foster green growth in Swindon and see the town thrive again with high-skilled, well-paid jobs. I believe that in a growing, stable economy, we can see that happen. Swindon is not just famous for its high number of roundabouts—if anyone in the Chamber has ever visited, I am sure they will remember those fondly—as we have also had the pleasure of not one, but two James Bond movies being filmed in the town.
It is impossible to talk about Swindon without mentioning its people. The people make Swindon what it is: a kind, welcoming, industrious place full of passion, innovation and a desire to support others, including strong local charities such as BEST, a charity at the forefront of tackling antisocial behaviour through mentoring and sports, the Kelly Foundation, which supports people suffering with mental health issues, and Changing Suits, which is breaking down barriers in diverse communities to ensure that people get the help they need. I want to say how proud I am of the residents in Swindon. We have seen tough times across the country, with riots sparked by division invading many communities, but they did not come to Swindon because in Swindon we know that diverse communities can stand strong together against extremism. We will not let division and hatred divide us; we will unite together and stand strong.
Swindon, for all its qualities, is not without its fair share of challenges—challenges that I will face head on. Our people are among the least likely in the country to go on to higher education. We have growing levels of knife crime and antisocial behaviour, raw sewage being pumped into our streams and residents of large housing estates being affected by unjust management companies and fleecehold. However, I am confident that with our renewed Labour party and our ambitious agenda set out in the King’s Speech—whether that is recruiting and retaining teachers, increasing police presence on our streets, providing mental health professionals in schools or reforming leasehold and fleecehold—all backed and fully costed in a fiscally responsible Budget, the people of Swindon North will experience the positive change they deserve.
To finish, I am proud to be here representing such a fantastic group of people. It truly is the opportunity of a lifetime, so once again, I say thank you so much to the people of Swindon North who have put their faith in me. I will not let you down.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Ghani)
I call Marie Goldman to make her maiden speech.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
First, I congratulate Members who have also made their maiden speeches in the Chamber this afternoon. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone). I wonder whether his skills as a Brazilian jiu-jitsu black-belt led him to apply to be an extra in those movies that he mentioned. I will be watching out for him in the fight scenes.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I would like to commend the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for a great speech. I know Chelmsford well—it is a beautiful town—and I commend her passion for supporting young people in schools and their journey, which is very important and something that we need to protect.
Thank you, Ms Ghani, for allowing me today to make my first contribution to the House. I think it is right to start off by thanking my predecessor as MP, Sir James Duddridge, for 19 years of dedicated service. He became MP in 2005 when Southend East and Rochford was newly redrawn. The rural areas to the north of Southend have been brought back within the constituency for the first time in many years. Throughout many boundary iterations, from Southend East and Rochford to Rochford and Southend East and back again—you can see the creativity in renaming the constituency—the area has always been Tory-held, up until now. I am particularly proud to speak here today as the seat’s first ever Labour representative.
The constituency consists of not just the city of Southend but the villages of Great Wakering, Canewdon, Barling, Paglesham, Stambridge and Shoeburyness, the suburbs of Southchurch and Thorpe Bay, and Rochford itself. It is a beautiful constituency, rich in culture, where you should bring your walking boots as well as your swimming costume. It is the place where Dame Helen Mirren went to primary school and home to the Cliffs Pavilion, which hosted Oasis in 1995—that might be tricky next time round depending on who can get tickets.
As a Southender, I am contractually obliged to mention that Southend is the site of the longest pier in the world, at 2,158 metres, with the option to walk or take a purpose-built train. I made the mistake some years ago of walking it with my son—he is a little bit older now, and he is up in the Gallery. My calves were struggling by the end of it.
From watching the maiden speeches of Labour colleagues past and present, I have been struck by the nature of the local industry that is so often name-checked. Tin, pottery, steel, textiles and coal are among the staple products in historical Labour seats. Those are noble and important goods—they are Labour goods—but they are not the stock-in-trade of my own seat. Southend’s primary industry and expertise has always been tourism: good times, escapism and happy memories. Those are our exports.
Southend is a city that allows people to meet a sea turtle, admire a vintage car, win a large teddy bear and even have their palm read, often during the course of a single day. It is a place where past generations have gone in search of freedom and pleasure, and it is hard in today’s world to think of a calling more important than that. Indeed, the musician Billy Bragg immortalised one of the roads that takes people to Southend in his 1985 song “A13 Trunk Road to the Sea”. The chorus name-checks Shoeburyness, and Bragg later said that he hoped his song would imbue the A13—I know this is a bit of a reach—with the same romance as route 66 in America, “The Road to Your Dreams,” which runs from Chicago to Los Angeles. That was a lofty lyrical ambition indeed, and it was always going to be a hard ask, but speaking as someone who grew up in the east end of London in that era, I can confirm that the idea of Southend always carried a certain magic. That is one reason why I feel so privileged to represent the area today.
Another reason is the constituency’s military heritage. At the eastern part of my seat we find Shoebury garrison, an area steeped in military history, and in the north is Southend airport, which now serves holidaymakers but in a past life was Rochford airfield, a fighter base that helped to fend off fascism during the second world war. As a former soldier, I was stationed in the Southend area for a short while. One of my great pleasures when canvassing is running into old Army friends still living in the seat—if they are prepared to open the door to me.
For me, as someone who left school with no qualifications, got into a lot of trouble as a young boy and needed a second chance, night school and the military provided a lifeline. I quite simply would not be here today in the mother of all Parliaments without the opportunities that gave me and the ethos of service that it instilled in me.
To properly understand Southend, we need to understand its proud military history. The city is built on a unique blend. The discipline and the dignity of the armed forces is combined with the creativity and the freedom of the arts—a place for both the soldier and the singer, if you like. But there is a risk of getting too misty-eyed. Coastal areas such as mine have been on the economic sharp end for 30 or 40 years. The root cause of that, most notably, is budget air travel, and that is not going away. Recent years have brought fresh challenges. Southend’s economy was at the sharp end during the covid pandemic. The city is still in its recovery phase. Many of the jewels in Southend’s crown—the Kursaal venue on the seafront or the Freight House in Rochford—remain unused or underused. I am determined that these buildings will come back to life again, as part of our future.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call Will Forster to make his maiden speech.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Thank you, Ms Nokes, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech. Before I do, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who spoke of his and his constituency’s proud military past. I am sure that he will see his constituency through these tough challenges and on to a brighter future.
It goes without saying that it is a great privilege and an honour of a lifetime to be here, having been elected by the people of Woking. I thank them for electing me as their Member of Parliament. However, I must begin by addressing the Bill and severe crisis facing my local authority, Woking borough council. Despite being relatively small, the Conservatives left Woking with more than £2 billion of debt following risky investment decisions. This legacy is one of negative equity, service cuts and unsustainable debt repayments. It could be argued that the Conservatives in Woking invented Truss economics before the former right hon. Member for South West Norfolk had her small stint as Prime Minister. What has happened in my constituency shows why the Bill is so important. I fear that, without support from the new Government, the situation in Woking, like the rest of local government, will only worsen. My constituents will suffer the most, and that is unacceptable when it is not their fault. I urge the Government to step in and provide the assistance we so desperately need to ensure that my community can recover and thrive.
Most people might think of Woking as a modern constituency, but it has a rich history that stretches back through the centuries. Woking was mentioned in the Domesday Book. Sutton Place, famous for being the former home of Paul Getty, dates from 1525, and is one of the oldest unfortified houses in the country. Woking palace—now sadly a ruin—was a royal residence for both Henry VII and Henry VIII. As a result, Woking football club, my local team, is affectionately known as the Cards, after Cardinal Wolsey.
Several Acts of Parliament have had an especially profound impact on Woking. For example, the Basingstoke canal was authorised by Parliament in 1778. The canal runs through much of Woking constituency. It has shaped our area, and is a popular cycling and walking route and a haven for nature. But like so many places in the country, Woking as we know it today was shaped by the railways. With steam, stone and iron, Woking was cast into the proud town it is today. In the mid-1800s we laid the foundations to become the great commuter town we are.
Woking is also a wonderfully diverse and welcoming place, home to the Shah Jahan mosque, the oldest in the country. A vibrant Muslim community has developed in the town as a result. More recently, we have welcomed Ukrainian refugees, and I attended many events to support our new Ukrainian residents with my predecessor, our former MP Jonathan Lord. That was a powerful example of cross-party co-operation, and I thank Jonathan for his service as Woking’s MP, especially on this humanitarian issue where there was no disagreement whatsoever. Although we were opponents at the last election, I wish him and his family well for the future. Woking’s MP before Jonathan was Humfrey Malins, who founded the Immigration Advisory Service in 1992, which to this day provides free asylum and immigration advice to those who need it. He got a CBE for his work. Woking has a proud history of electing MPs who welcome immigration, and I am pleased to follow that tradition.
Our town is also known for its connection to McLaren; it hosts its Formula 1 team and luxury cars are built there. I was privileged to make a visit only yesterday. As a young child of around 11, I remember watching with excitement as McLaren toured the town with its Formula 1 cars, driven by Mika Häkkinen, to celebrate their success. McLaren is winning again, much like the Liberal Democrats.
The town also takes great pride in being home to the World Wide Fund for Nature. We have pressing issues, such as sewage in our rivers and the fight against climate change. I am already working alongside the five other newly elected Liberal Democrat MPs in Surrey to hold Thames Water to account for sewage dumping in our local rivers and streams. One of my first acts as an MP is to bring all the surrey MPs together to meet Thames Water to petition it for improvements and a better service.
Woking is fortunate to be surrounded by green spaces. I love walking my dachshund Toffee on Horsell Common, where HG Wells famously landed his aliens in “War of the Worlds”. So it was not a great surprise when Ed Davey’s Liberal Democrats turned up and started campaigning with their out-of-this-world stunts. Of course, I’m only “woking”—I wouldn’t dare call my Liberal Democrat colleagues aliens.
Getting back to the matter at hand, my constituency has a much-loved local hospital, Woking community hospital. Despite feeling like I was born and bred in Woking, I was not actually born in the constituency. Actually, no one has been born in a hospital in Woking for generations. I was born in Frimley Park hospital, one of the nearby hospitals we depend on, as Woking lacks maternity services. However, Frimley Park is plagued with RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—and its future is far from certain. I will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) to press the Government for a solution to rebuild Frimley Park hospital.
Another major issue is the cost of rent and mortgages. As someone under 40—just—I understand these issues deeply. They have been raised consistently by local people on the doorstep. The increased cost of mortgages and rents in the past two years is a further reason why the Bill is so important.
My journey into politics began because of Surrey county council’s failure to protect vulnerable children. At the time, it was rated the worst county council in the country because of that failure. We cannot allow vulnerable children to be failed again.
The wider theme of why I was elected, and indeed why so many of my hard-working Liberal Democrat colleagues have been elected, is that we understand our communities’ local issues. I have worked for 15 years in local government and served as deputy leader of Woking Council. I have seen first-hand the crippling issues that some councils face. When I look at the faces of the Liberal Democrat MPs here, I see people who have worked hard in local government for years. What a glorious theme for this new Parliament: a cohort of 72 who understand the local issues our communities face, and a force for good in the country and in the Chamber when we need it most.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call Jake Richards to make his maiden speech.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms Nokes. It is such a great privilege to speak in this debate and make my maiden speech after the hon. Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) made a fantastic speech about the city in his constituency, which I have had the great privilege of swimming in. His speech did due justice to that great place. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) made a faintly terrifying speech about his Brazilian jujitsu skills, and he certainly did justice to Swindon, too.
It is a great honour to speak in the Chamber as the Member of Parliament for Rother Valley. For so many on the Labour Benches in particular, making our maiden speeches is the conclusion of long and hard-fought campaigns in which we were ultimately victorious. In the early hours of 5 July, which just happened to be my birthday, we celebrated the end of 14 years of Conservative Government and the first Labour Government of my adult life, but we also humbly accept the responsibility that we have been given. In the context of an often bitter and heated political campaign, and from the thousands of valued conversations I had in my constituency, one cannot avoid the fact that we as a country face daunting and urgent challenges.
We cannot overlook the deep apathy towards the ability of politics, and indeed this place, to effect change. There has been the rise of online disinformation blaming bogeymen who do not exist. Conspiracy theorists and keyboard warriors purposefully ignore the complexities of the world around us for attention. Political culture too often thrives on division and controversy, not the common good. The hyperactive vitriolic politics seen so often across the Atlantic is seeping into our discourse here, undermining constructive dialogue. There is an epidemic of alienation among our young people, with levels of self-harm and suicide in my constituency increasing all the time. Children are arriving at school still in nappies and too often without breakfast in their bellies. Waiting lists for mental health support now stretch to half a decade, with many young people reaching their majority by the time they are seen. Too many people in my constituency feel they have to leave their village or town to get on in life. There is a disillusionment that their home, their community, their place is no longer offering the security and hope that people deserve. There is a fear for the future. I was told so often during the election campaign, “What’s the point of politics? This country is broken.”
Perhaps some of those factors came to the fore over the summer recess, when a group organised to attend a hotel just a few miles from my constituency in Wath, planning to set that building on fire knowing full well there were innocent people inside. The pictures on our televisions were difficult to comprehend. I spoke to a young mother who had been made homeless and was being temporarily accommodated there with her children. The terror she described will haunt me forever.
But from the gloom of that violent act came hope. The day after the hotel was attacked, I reached out to the Muslim community in my constituency and was invited to a meeting after evening prayer. I arrived eager to show solidarity, but anxious about the fear and damage that the community would have suffered—and yes, there was plenty of concern. But the first question I encountered was not one of anger or retribution, but instead a comment urging me to speak with the perpetrators of the violence in order to better understand the causes and motivation. It was a moment of great generosity and sensitivity, and one that will always stay with me.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call Clive Jones to make his maiden speech.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) on his very interesting speech—I learnt an awful lot about his constituency. I have also learnt a lot today about Southend East and Rochford, Portsmouth North and Swindon North, and especially about my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). I actually knew quite a lot about them before, but it was nice to hear some more. I particularly liked the speech from the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who suggested that the Minister might like to get his chequebook out. Let me say to him, “If you are getting your chequebook out, I would like you to spend some money for the constituents of Wokingham.”
Members on these Benches have a strong sense of social justice. This comes to us from many directions during our lives. Fifty years ago, I had an inspirational social and religious studies teacher, John Featherstone, to whom I am grateful for helping to instil these values in me. This sense of social justice will, I hope, guide me during my time in this House. I am very pleased that John is up there in the Gallery today.
It is a pleasure to represent the constituency of Wokingham, whose boundaries somewhat changed at the last general election. I would like to pay tribute to my three predecessors, who each represented part of the constituency. From James Sunderland, the former MP for Bracknell, my constituency inherited the parishes of Finchampstead and Wokingham Without. I always found James approachable and straightforward, and I understand that his constituents found the same.
Sir John Redwood was the MP for the former Wokingham constituency for a remarkable 37 years—a tremendous stint of public service—during which he had a profound influence on public policy. He served in Margaret Thatcher’s Government as a junior Minister, and in John Major’s Cabinet as Secretary of State for Wales, where he is best known for his enthusiastic miming of the Welsh national anthem.
The wards of Thames and Twyford were represented by Theresa May—now Baroness May of Maidenhead—for 27 years. She was a dedicated public servant who served as Home Secretary and Prime Minister. She also has a well-deserved reputation among her former constituents, who hold her in high regard and talk about her warmly, with affection and with much respect. Although our politics are different, I wish all of my predecessors well in their future endeavours.
It is an honour and a privilege to be elected to represent the people of Wokingham, where I have lived for much of the last 50 years. I went to school there, and my children went to school there. They were born in the nearby Royal Berkshire hospital, where I am proud to be a governor. It is also the hospital where doctors found my cancer in 2008 and began my successful treatment. In 2016, they were there to help me again, and diagnosed a need for a quadruple heart bypass. Without the Royal Berkshire hospital, I would not be standing here today. Our NHS staff are wonderful, and clinicians at the Royal Berkshire hospital deserve all the praise that is heaped on them by my constituents.
Today we are debating the Chancellor’s Budget Responsibility Bill. In a previous debate, she announced the pausing of the new hospital building programme, which included the Royal Berkshire hospital. Parts of the building date back to 1839, and staff have to work in offices where the windows do not open, and they regularly have to walk around buckets that are there to catch dripping rainwater. I must repeat my plea to both the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for a speedy decision as to when the much-needed rebuild of our beloved hospital will happen.
If I may, Madam Chair, I would like to give you a short tour of the Wokingham constituency. In the north is the world-famous Henley regatta course at Remenham and the very successful Leander rowing club—one of the most successful sports clubs in the world. I was delighted that the former Prime Minister chose to visit the Leander Club during the recent general election, and even more so that his visit coincided with a boat trip that I and my hon. Friends the Members for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) were making to highlight the dumping of raw sewage into our waterways. It was fun to wave at the Prime Minister from that beautiful stretch of river, and the media all seemed to enjoy it as well.
Wokingham has wonderful, picturesque villages. Wargrave was first recorded in 1061 and features in the Domesday Book. The village of Twyford dates from 871, when Alfred the Great’s army escaped Viking pursuers by crossing the River Loddon. Wokingham has a thriving and growing brewing sector that is establishing great reputations among beer lovers, including the Loddon brewery, the Elusive brewery and the Siren brewery. The Stanlake Park wine estate in Hurst is one of the oldest wine producers in England.
The Chancellor will know that our town centres and village centres, like many others in the UK, are finding life difficult. The cost of living crisis created by the previous Government continues to limit people’s spending power, and online competition is ruthless. Business rates are a huge issue for our local retailers, who make our high streets the great places they are, and I do hope that the Chancellor and Ministers will look into the reform of business rates at the earliest opportunity.
Wokingham town received its market charter in 1219. I thoroughly recommend the market, especially the fruit and veg stall and the fishmonger. My wife likes me to buy flowers for her from Darren’s flower stall. She says they last longer than any supermarket flowers. Using this market is good value for money and it is an important part of our local character.
Today, the constituency is gaining a reputation as a home for life sciences businesses. I was pleased, when leader of the council, to be involved in the early stages of discussions with Lonza, a Swiss public company that will be investing several hundred million pounds in the constituency over the next few years.
Wokingham has many charities in which volunteers work hard to improve the lives of our residents. I will mention just a few: the Wokingham food bank, First Days, Wokingham in Need, Building for the Future, Citizens Advice, Age UK Berkshire, Wokingham United Charities and the Cowshed. The dedication and hard work of the volunteers in these charities and many others is truly inspirational.
In the southern part of the constituency, in Arborfield, there is a former Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers garrison, with which the town had an important relationship for many years.
John Walter, a newspaper editor and politician, and the son of the founder of The Times, lived on the Bearwood estate. He was a Whig MP for the county of Berkshire before 1832—early beginnings of what I hope will become a long-standing tradition in our area.
Madam Chair, from your chair you must be thinking that this 59th Parliament has so many young faces, and I hope you will be including me in that category. I bet you are wondering, “What is his secret?” It is very simple: I worked in the toy industry for many years, running manufacturing and importing businesses. Playing with toys every day for the last 30 to 40 years is what makes me look so young. Our toys made many young people and their parents happy. I am hoping to be just as successful in my second career, helping the people of Wokingham to improve their lives. If I can achieve this, I will have had two worthwhile careers.
Finally, I am grateful to the many people—in particular, my family and friends—who have helped me in my campaigns to be elected to the House of Commons, some of whom are in the Gallery today. Wokingham has never before elected a Liberal Democrat MP. I will work tirelessly to represent my constituents and I will endeavour to make them feel recognised and supported. I come here idealistic and hopeful, hoping that we can make the public feel the same about our institutions, and I want to ensure that we do them justice on these battered but far from broken green Benches.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), and to listen to the excellent speeches made in this Chamber.
It is an honour to address the House as the new Member of Parliament for Dudley. The last Labour MP to represent Dudley was Ian Austin, now Lord Austin, who served as Minister for the West Midlands in the last Labour Government. He was a passionate and dedicated servant of the town in which he grew up. My immediate predecessor, Marco Longhi, also had a deep passion for the heritage of Dudley. In his contributions to the House, he sought to protect the historical buildings not just in our town but throughout our country.
I now look forward to playing my part in protecting and preserving our heritage, and to go further by preserving our remarkable healthcare system. Working at the Dudley group NHS foundation trust as a physiotherapist, I saw patients from across our town—from Gornal, Castle and Priory, St Thomas’s, Brockmoor and Pensnett, St James’s, Sedgley, and Upper Gornal and Woodsetton. Seeing at first hand the ongoing issues faced by our NHS, and hearing at first hand the challenges my patients encountered, served as the catalyst for my decision to enter this House.
My primary goal is to enhance the wellbeing of my residents in Dudley, and to secure an NHS that is equipped to meet the evolving needs of our country. The NHS, founded by a Labour Government, is truly a remarkable institution, and its history, achievements and challenges remind us of the importance of investing in a comprehensive and fair healthcare system.
Dudley is the capital of the Black Country, and I know my constituency neighbours will agree. It has a long and proud history, celebrated on Black Country Day. Dudley was the driving force behind the industrial revolution. It is home to Dudley castle, which was built by the Normans and is where people can visit the delightful Dudley zoo.
Yet Dudley’s attractions go back even further. Wren’s Nest national nature reserve is part of the Black Country UNESCO geopark. It has one of the oldest lime works in the UK, and the rock there is 428 million years old. Wren’s Nest contains over 700 different types of fossils. People come from all over the world to find fossils, and I invite hon. Members to walk around Wren’s Nest with me to look at the spectacular landscape and to see if they can find a fossil of their own to take home.
Perhaps nothing displays the pride of the people of Dudley as much as our Black Country Living Museum. This magnificent tourist attraction not only promises a bostin’ day out; it has also been used as a filming location for, among others, the TV series “Peaky Blinders” and films such as “Stan & Ollie”. The museum has recently added a new attraction to show what life was like in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. A few years ago, the museum had an exhibition to mark 100 years since the granting of women’s suffrage. It is a measure of the progress we have made since then that I can now make my maiden speech as Dudley’s first female MP.
Like the Black Country Living Museum, Dudley has changed through time. In the past, Dudley smelted iron ore, mined coal and limestone, and built a canal network that stretched across the country. Now, the Dudley-based Black Country Innovative Manufacturing Organisation is a world-class centre for rail innovation, helping towns and cities across the world meet the challenges of the 2020s.
This Bill will also help us meet the challenges of the future. It will protect market stability and public trust, and ensure the Government’s fiscal plans are independently and transparently scrutinised, future-proofing our economy. That will help business owners like my father, Ashok Kumar, who arrived in this country at the age of nine. He set up his own business and is still working as a greengrocer 45 years on. He taught me the importance of hard work and heritage. As a new MP, nothing gives me more pleasure than talking to business owners like my dad.
I would like to finish by paying tribute to two extraordinary women, without whom I would not be in this Chamber today. My sister has been my guiding light from the moment I was born. She has supported me unconditionally and encouraged me to pursue my dreams, and today, as every day, she teaches me to never give up. My maa, Rajinder Kaur, taught me the values of community, faith and resilience. She was an aspiring Bollywood actress. While those dreams may have fallen short, her legacy will be etched in history by being mentioned in this House today.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know this speech is nowhere near the length of a Bollywood movie, and is coming to a close. I finish by turning once more to the people of Dudley. It is an honour to represent them and our great town in this House. I promise I will work as hard as I can to bring prosperity and happiness to our town, and I will not let them down.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her excellent maiden speech. Indeed, we have heard more than half a dozen excellent maiden speeches today, several of which touched on the climate crisis and the future of children in our country, themes that relate to my amendment. I was touched to hear the passion with which all the new Members spoke about their experiences and commitments.
My amendment 5 requires the OBR to report on the impact of fiscally significant measures announced by the Government on the UK’s statutory net zero target. The justification for my amendment is that we simply cannot separate the economy and the climate—they are interlinked. To deliver the green economic transformation that we so urgently need, as referenced by hon. Members speaking earlier, every single policy must be aligned with the UK’s net zero target and every Government spending decision should be as well.
It makes sense to increase the OBR’s remit on net zero to specifically consider the impact of climate risks on economic stability, and how far policies introduced at fiscal events will reduce or increase these risks. Fiscal events, namely Budgets and spending reviews, lock in what is happening in our economy for years to come, even generations, so it beggars belief that they are not properly taking account of climate impacts. Whether those policies are spending on new roads, subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas, investment in renewables infrastructure or giveaways like a freeze on fuel duty, they all have direct impacts on the UK’s prospect of meeting our net zero targets. Those impacts should be made clear and considered explicitly in the policy-making paper. We need to be thinking about the impacts of today’s economic policies on the prospects for future generations.
The costs of failing to take an approach that considers climate impacts are eye watering. A 2022 report by the Grantham Institute found that climate change damages to the UK are projected to triple by 2050 and more than double again 50 years later, so climate prudence and fiscal prudence are one and the same thing. Given that the OBR’s main duty is to assess the health of the UK economy and the sustainability of its public finances, it needs to be charged with assessing whether fiscal events are reducing or increasing climate risks to the economy.
Bringing net zero into the OBR’s mandate is consistent with the Government’s five missions. Indeed, in announcing its clean energy superpower document, Labour said that it will add net zero mandates to all relevant regulators that need it. I would argue that the OBR is a relevant regulator that needs a net zero mandate. That is why I am proposing this probing amendment today. As other Members have mentioned, it would also represent increased transparency around how fiscal policy choices are impacting the UK’s progress towards our net zero targets and help ensure that future Governments also consider that.
It is also an important stepping stone towards a net zero test, which would assess the aggregate climate and nature impact of every fiscal event. Again, this is something that Labour committed to in opposition. In his winding-up remarks, will the Minister comment on whether he is able to ensure that this test is integrated into the legislation that he is proposing?
I hope that Labour will use this opportunity to commit publicly to introducing a net zero test in Government, and will take a step towards doing that by backing my amendment.
The Second Deputy Chairman
I call Lauren Edwards to make her maiden speech.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Madam Chair.
I pay tribute to the many hon. Members who have given such impressive maiden speeches today. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) who gave such a passionate speech about her constituency, and who certainly did her family very proud. Although she has left her place, may I also commend the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for her excellent speech, which, as somebody born in Australia, I particularly appreciated for its reference to the Australian opera singer, Dame Nellie Melba?
Financial market stability and public trust in announcements on fiscally significant measures are, funnily enough, not issues that come up regularly on the doorstep. But the real-life consequences when these two important pillars of our society are lacking was central to the recent conversations that I had across Rochester and Strood.
The cost of living pressures, already challenging for most, were heightened as families found that they had to pay, on average, hundreds of pounds more just to put a roof over their heads. The cause of that additional pressure—the former Truss Government’s mini-Budget—was a deeply undesirable situation that this Bill seeks to prevent from ever happening again. One reason given for the adverse market reaction to that mini-Budget was the lack of forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility—an omission which, in turn, contributed to a lack of investor confidence in the plans. Political parties, whatever their colour, can have the best policies in the world, but if they are not backed with economic competence and market confidence in those who are holding the purse strings, no one will be better off for them.
We cannot and should not play fast and loose with the economy, so, like many others, I take great comfort from the Bill. That includes the chair of the OBR himself, Robert Hughes, who says that the Bill will address a gap in the current law and
“serve to strengthen the legal foundations for fiscal management.”
It is surely only right that policymakers, when making major fiscal decisions, base those decisions on up-to-date economic and fiscal outlooks, published at the same time to give maximum transparency.
I dwell so much on economic stability as I view it as a necessary precondition for economic growth—this Government’s chief mission—and because, in recent years, there has not been enough focus on the latter in places such as Medway. I am immensely proud to call Rochester and Strood my home and honoured to have been given the opportunity by its residents to represent them here in this place. I will work hard every day to ensure that residents’ voices are heard in this Chamber and to get a better deal for everybody in Rochester and Strood. I will do that by continuing to drive regeneration work in my constituency, work that I began as a former cabinet member on Medway council. I will work with the Government and the private sector to bring more investment to our towns and villages, support the local business community to thrive, and provide more opportunities for young people, so that they do not feel that they need to move away to get on in life.
Rochester and Strood has many strengths, not least the military presence at Brompton barracks, home of the Royal Engineers. The River Medway, which runs the length of the constituency, has so much potential for industry, leisure and tourism, and a very rich maritime history from the days of Chatham dockyard. We have a burgeoning creative community centred at Chatham Intra, developing green industries out on the Hoo peninsula, and high-quality technical colleges and universities. However, we also have high levels of deprivation in the constituency, not enough good-quality and affordable housing, an overburdened hospital, and not enough infrastructure, including health services, public transport and banking services, to support our communities, particularly on the more rural Strood side of the constituency.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I talk about Plymouth, may I celebrate the amazing speeches that we have heard this afternoon, and pay tribute to the wealth of experience and passion, not just on the Government Benches but across the Chamber? It is really heartening. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) spoke about the spirit that we have all seen in the communities that we represent, and the confidence that he has in that spirit to overcome some of the challenges that we are facing as a nation and in our communities. I completely share that.
Let me now talk about Plymouth, the city that I call home and the city that I am so proud to represent in this place as the Member for Plymouth Moor View. I want to talk about our people, our institutions, our rolling hills, grey warships glinting in the south coast sun and the noise that 43,000 Argyle fans make on match day. I want to talk about the gritty determination of staff at one of the biggest hospitals in the country, and I want to talk about hope.
I will frame this speech with two principles that I lived by during my time in the Royal Marines, principles that are well known amongst the armed forces community in Plymouth. First, a leader must be a dealer of hope. When the chips are down, leaders have to step forward and give hope. I believe that is our job in Parliament too. In Plymouth, communities come together to give each other hope. There is immense strength and resilience in the streets, the housing estates, the front rooms and wherever folks get together and organise to change the lives they and their neighbours are living, making simple, tangible changes by addressing the needs in front of them.
We have Whitleigh Big Local, the Four Greens Community Trust and Connecting Youth CIC, to name just a few, working in partnership with the local community to improve the things that matter and to bring hope. I want to use my position in this House to empower our community to effect change and generate hope that life will get better and that families can be lifted out of poverty.
Today, relative child poverty in Plymouth Moor View is at 23%, set against the regional figure of 17%. I will not accept rising child poverty, because the second principle that I live by, one I believe a lot of us share, is this: “The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.” If we see something that we know is wrong and we keep walking, we are effectively saying we are happy with that situation. The harder option is not to walk past, but to take action.
Derriford hospital in Plymouth serves almost 2 million people across Devon and Cornwall. I have met the nurses, paramedics, doctors and volunteers, who do fantastic work under immense pressure. They are people who do not just walk past. However, the hospital is up against it: in June alone, there were 5,000 instances where a patient waited more than four hours in A&E. That represents a series of personal tragedies for the patients affected. With the new Government, I will work tirelessly to change that story.
Away from the hospital, the beating heart of our city is Plymouth Argyle football club, which is in its second season now in the championship, making it one of the top clubs in the English football league. Yet in Plymouth, many families struggle to afford access to sport for their kids. I am a keen footballer and I believe in the power of sport to set young people up for life. I will use my platform to improve access to sport in Plymouth, because a standard where this country has the finest football leagues, watched the world over, but our own youngsters cannot afford to play is not a standard I will walk past. I pay tribute to the excellent work that the Argyle community trust and the Plymouth football boot bank do already to broaden access to sport in Plymouth.
As a former Royal Marines commando, it is a particular privilege to represent the city that is home to not only the largest naval base in western Europe, but the Royal Marines, who are still headquartered in Plymouth. Ours is a city where so many residents have served in uniform, and I take this opportunity to thank every single one of them for their service and dedication. I also pay tribute to my predecessor for his heartfelt efforts to raise the profile of the veterans agenda.
For centuries, Plymouth has had a proud military history, and the Prime Minister recently called it
“the frontline of defence in this country”.
Navy, Marines and Army personnel have deployed from Plymouth for hundreds of years. The tradition of proud military service runs through our city like the writing in a stick of rock. Now, as we find ourselves as a country in another moment of critical international instability, Plymouth is again a keystone of our national security. Devonport dockyard is the home port for the frigates, survey vessels and amphibious shipping that are crucial for our safety. It is also where the submarines that host our nuclear deterrent are maintained, and will be for generations to come. We are also home to highly skilled small and medium-sized enterprises such as MSubs—makers of unmanned submersible craft used in the most special military projects—Barden bearings and Collins Aerospace, whose cutting-edge engineering is integral to the UK’s modern weapons systems.
From our military institutions and our manufacturing base to our hospital, our football club and our dockyard, we stand up and we serve in Plymouth. We give a lot to this nation, but for all this—if I can borrow a phrase from a friend and a constant source of advice, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—Plymouth does not get its fair share. I will work tirelessly with the Government to change that, because in Labour we respect service, and ours will be a Government of service—a Government of hope. As I served my country before in uniform, so I will serve my city now in office. As I was trained to do in the Marines, I will strive to be a dealer of hope. When it comes to taking action, I will remember, along with colleagues on both sides of the House, that the standard we walk past is the standard we accept.
Lucy Rigby (Northampton North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) on his fantastic maiden speech and to all hon. Members who have made such brilliant maiden speeches in this afternoon’s debate. It is a privilege to follow them and to make my own maiden speech in the context of such an important Bill.
Northampton has sent Members to Parliament since 1283, and it is the honour of my life to be among them as the Member of Parliament for Northampton North. One of those former Members, I am proud to say, was the trailblazing Margaret Bondfield—the first woman to serve in Cabinet in this country, the first to be appointed to the Privy Council and the first to chair the TUC. I hope, in the course of my time here, that we might find ways to see Margaret’s name given greater recognition and prominence, as I believe is due. Some 51 years after Margaret Bondfield’s arrival in this House, the good people of my constituency elected Maureen Colquhoun—a trailblazer herself in relation to many issues, including being the country’s first openly gay MP.
I want to pay particular tribute to my two immediate predecessors: Sir Michael Ellis and Sally Keeble. Sir Michael stepped down at the last election, having served Northampton North for 14 years and served the country as a Minister in multiple roles. He is also remembered locally for performing lifesaving CPR on a constituent having a coronary episode—I am more than aware that that sets me a very high bar for looking after my constituents. Like Sir Michael, Labour’s Sally Keeble served Northampton North for well over a decade and served her country in government too. Sally has many achievements—notable among them was the taking through of one of the last pieces of legislation under the previous Labour Government to protect developing countries from vulture funds. Sally remains a dedicated and committed public servant. I do not mind admitting that I spoke to plenty of residents during the election campaign who told me that while they really appreciated my doorstep pitch for their support, they would be voting for Sally Keeble.
I am aware of the examples of good service in this place that have been set for me, and I hope to live up to them, so I want my constituents to know that serving our community in Northampton will be my first and highest priority for as long as I remain in this place. This place could, in fact, be in my constituency, because Northampton has been the seat of Parliament on more than 30 occasions. King John even moved the Treasury to Northampton in 1205, when he fell out with a few people in London over something akin to the disastrous mini-Budget—an option that I suspect those supportive of the Treasury’s current location will be glad to know was not suggested, as far as we know, to the former right hon. Member for South West Norfolk.
We are a town of deep pride in both our present and our past. We are the largest town in England. We have buildings of neo-gothic splendour; strong communities; beautiful green spaces such as Eastfield Park, Abington Park and the Racecourse; and not one but two shoe armies: Premiership champions Northampton Saints, and the mighty Cobblers. Our boot and shoemaking industry has provided many Members of this House with their footwear over the years, including, I am proud to say, the former Prime Minister and Member for Sedgefield, who wore the same lucky pair of Church’s brogues at every Prime Minister’s questions for 10 years, which just goes to show where a good pair of Northampton shoes can get you.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. May I start by congratulating hon. Friends and others on delivering their maiden speeches? It has been a pleasure to be in the Chamber to hear them this afternoon. They will clearly be great champions for their constituencies.
I will take a few moments to remind the House of why we are taking forward the important clauses in the Bill, and to set out the Government’s views on the proposed amendments. At the general election, the Government received a mandate for economic growth. That is the only route to improving prosperity, and it is now our national mission. A crucial first step to achieving it is to deliver economic stability. We have seen what happens without stability: at the 2022 Conservative mini-Budget, huge unfunded fiscal commitments were made without proper scrutiny, and key economic institutions such as the Office for Budget Responsibility were sidelined. That is why we have made a commitment in our manifesto to a fiscal lock that will strengthen the role of the OBR, and why we have taken quick action to deliver on that commitment. That will reinforce credibility and trust by preventing large-scale unfunded commitments that are not subject to an independent fiscal assessment, and proves that we are a responsible Government who will not play fast and loose with the public finances as the previous Government did.
The Bill sets out the legal framework for the operation of the fiscal lock, and builds on the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. In line with that established legal framework, some of the technical detail underpinning the fiscal lock will be set out via an upcoming update to the charter for budget responsibility, a draft of which the Treasury has published to support scrutiny of the Bill today.
I will now talk through the Bill’s two clauses. The first is the main substantive clause, setting out the operation of the fiscal lock. It introduces a new section 4A into part 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, which relates to budget responsibility and was used to legally establish the OBR.
Clause 1 makes five key changes. First, new subsection (1) of section 4A guarantees in law that from now on, every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR. It will require that before a Government Minister makes any fiscally significant announcement to Parliament, the Treasury always requests that the OBR prepare an economic and fiscal forecast. This builds on existing legal frameworks requiring the OBR to produce at least two forecasts per year. Importantly, the OBR’s assessment should include the extent to which the Government are meeting their fiscal mandate. That requirement applies when two or more announcements are made and the combination of measures is fiscally significant, irrespective of whether the measures are announced at the same time. It will also apply separately to costs and savings, so that those cannot be offset against each other.
New subsection (2) strengthens the role of the OBR by requiring it to produce an independent assessment if it judges that the fiscal lock has been triggered. If a fiscally significant announcement is made without the Treasury having previously requested a forecast, the OBR is required to inform the Treasury Committee of this House of its opinion, and then prepare an assessment as soon as is practicable.
New subsection (3) defines a measure or combination of measures as “fiscally significant” if they exceed a specified percentage of GDP. In line with the existing legal framework, the precise threshold will be set via an update to the charter for budget responsibility, a draft of which will be published on gov.uk. The threshold level itself will be set at announcements of at least 1% of nominal GDP in the latest forecast—as an example, this year, that 1% threshold would be £28 billion.
New subsection (4) ensures proper scrutiny of the Government’s fiscal plans without preventing them from responding to emergencies such as the covid-19 pandemic. It sets out that the fiscal lock does not apply in respect of measures that are intended to have a temporary effect and are in response to an emergency. The charter will define “temporary” as any measure that is intended to end within two years. To safeguard against this subsection being used to avoid proper scrutiny, as set out in the updated charter, the OBR will have the discretion to trigger the fiscal lock and prepare a report if it reasonably disagrees.
Finally, new subsection (6) prevents any future Government from choosing to ignore the fiscal lock by simply updating the charter for budget responsibility alongside a fiscally significant announcement. It achieves this by requiring the Government to publish any updates to the detail of the fiscal lock, such as the threshold level at which it is triggered, at least 28 days before the updated charter is laid before Parliament.
Clause 2 sets out when the Bill will come into force and to whom it applies. Subsection (1) confirms that it deals with reserved or excepted matters, and that its provisions extend and therefore apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Subsections (2) and (3) allow for the commencement of the legislation to occur at the appropriate time, as is usual practice. We expect this will take place ahead of the upcoming Budget on 30 October.
I will now turn to the amendments that right hon. and hon. Members have tabled.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Before my right hon. Friend does so, will he give way?
Karl Turner
Is this Bill not designed to prevent the recklessness of the previous Tory Government, who effectively crashed the economy, leaving this new Labour Government with the responsibility of putting things right?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that that was one of the reasons we achieved such a large mandate at the last general election, with so many hon. Friends on the Government Benches. We will never play fast and loose with the economy, as Members on the Conservative Benches did, and this Bill will prevent that from happening again in the future.
I start with amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the shadow Chancellor. They would require the OBR to publish a report whenever His Majesty’s Treasury announces new fiscal rules. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no Government can make large-scale announcements of tax and spending without being subject to independent assessment. The Government’s robust fiscal rules will support economic stability, but do not change tax and spending. It is those decisions that matter, as we saw when the previous Conservative Government announced £45 billion of unfunded commitments in the 2022 mini-Budget.
Andrew Griffith
The Minister can answer this briefly as well. Could he confirm that he has no plans to change the fiscal rules?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman is enjoying himself, but he knows the answer: wait for the Budget.
The amendments from the official Opposition are therefore not necessary. To answer the question from the shadow Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), as I have been invited to do so, the Chancellor has already confirmed that the Government will set out the precise details of our fiscal rules at the Budget on 30 October, alongside an updated OBR forecast.
amendments 6 and 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), focus on the definition of “fiscally significant” measures to which the fiscal lock will apply. They would extend the definition to include measures that have a cumulative effect on public sector net debt or contingent liabilities. I welcome my hon. Friend highlighting this issue, on which I know she has worked for many years. The draft charter text states that measures will trigger the lock when the combined costing is at least 1% of GDP in any year, and specifically:
“The costing of a measure is the direct impact of a policy decision on the public finances”.
It is difficult to set and interpret a threshold consistently for contingent liabilities as they can often be large in maximum exposure, but low in expected or reasonable worst-case losses. Effective management of contingent liabilities is important, and transparency is key to good fiscal management. The Government plan to announce new significant contingent liabilities at fiscal events to make sure there is transparency with Parliament. We will of course continue to notify Parliament of new contingent liabilities, as set out in “Managing Public Money”.
The amendments would also place a condition on policies with a cumulative impact on public sector net debt, and my hon. Friend noted public-private partnerships as an example. She was referring to PFI and PF2 models, which the previous Government had no longer proceeded with, and there has been no change to this policy. As the Chancellor said in her Mais lecture earlier this year, we will also report on wider measures of public sector assets and liabilities at fiscal events to ensure transparency across the whole balance sheet, which includes non-debt liabilities. Reporting transparently on the Government’s stock of contingent liabilities is key to ensuring we do not take excessive risk. I can therefore confirm today that the Government will publish a report on our contingent liabilities. I expect the contingent liability central capability to do this in early 2025. Having said all that, I recognise the issues my hon. Friend raises, and I will arrange to meet her to discuss them further.
Moving on to the Liberal Democrat amendments, amendment 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As she said, it would enable the OBR to notify the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests if the fiscal lock was triggered. I remind hon. Members that the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that never again do we find ourselves in a situation, like at the 2022 Liz Truss mini-Budget, in which fiscally significant measures are announced without accompanying OBR analysis. If a future Government were to act in this way, the Bill provides a clear remedy. The OBR is empowered to independently notify the Treasury Committee and to produce its own report. This would be available for full scrutiny by stakeholders and Parliament, which would be able to hold Ministers to account in the normal way. We therefore do not consider the amendment necessary.
Amendment 1, also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would broaden the definition of fiscally significant measures to cover anything that is likely to have an impact on the cost of Government borrowing, interest rates or economic growth. The Bill is focused on preventing irresponsible large-scale fiscal announcements that could undermine macroeconomic stability, such as at the mini-Budget. To support that, we need clear and robust legal frameworks that ensure the provisions are triggered only when appropriate. This requires precise definitions that everyone, including the OBR in particular, can understand clearly and work with practically. It would therefore not be helpful, in the Government’s view, to have a broader, vaguer definition that might repeatedly trigger the fiscal lock under many different circumstances.
Amendments 3 and 4 would require the Treasury to consult the OBR and the Treasury Committee before the charter can be updated for the purposes of the fiscal lock, and to publish a report on the outcome of any such consultations. It is of course important that the views of the OBR and of Parliament are taken into account when making changes to the charter. However, I hope the hon. Member will accept that it will not be necessary to set out this specific process in primary legislation, because the Bill already includes an important safeguard on the fiscal lock, which is the requirement that any changes to the charter for budget responsibility are published in draft at least 28 days before they are laid in the Commons. That will ensure that the OBR, the Treasury Committee, this Parliament and all stakeholders will have a clear opportunity to make representations to the Treasury and to publish their views, as they see fit.
Amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), would require the OBR to take net zero targets into account when preparing a report on fiscally significant announcements. Strong legal frameworks are already in place in the Climate Change Act 2008 to support the transition to net zero in 2050. The Act legislates for interim five-year carbon budgets, and requires the Government to report on those periodically. Parliament and its Select Committees already scrutinise that in great detail. The Green Book, the Treasury’s guidance on how to appraise policies, projects and programmes, requires Departments to assess the climate and environmental impacts of policy proposals, with major bids and proposals at fiscal events being assessed accordingly in that way. We therefore do not consider the amendment to be necessary.
Ellie Chowns
Does the Minister agree that having committed to give a net zero mandate to all relevant regulators, the OBR is indeed a highly relevant regulator?
Darren Jones
And it is equipped to do the job it is supposed to do, alongside the other regulatory body that holds the Government to account, the Committee on Climate Change.
In conclusion, I hope I have been able to provide some assurances and that hon. Members will be content to retract their amendments. If not, I urge the House to reject them. I thank other Members for their contributions to the debate. I gently invite the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) to reflect on his own party’s record in crashing the economy through unfunded tax cuts, losing control of public spending and ruining family finances, before offering advice to this Government on fiscal responsibility. I say to the SNP spokesperson, who is not in his place, that I was surprised to see so many discredited Conservative party lines to take in his speech. Who knew that the SNP and the Tory party were one and the same thing?
With this Labour Government our commitment to fiscal discipline and sound money is the bedrock of all our plans. The Bill will guarantee in law that from now on every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR. That delivers on a key manifesto commitment to provide economic stability and sound public finances by strengthening the role of the independent OBR. That is a crucial first step to achieve sustained economic growth, and I commend the Bill to the House.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call shadow Minister Nigel Huddleston.
Nigel Huddleston
I will not detain the House long by repeating the arguments that I made in my opening comments, but I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, and in particular by his refusal to accept our amendments. It is alarming that he is refusing to do so because, as I outlined, I believe they are consistent with the goals of the Bill overall, and I think the credibility of the Bill will be seriously undermined if it does not include the fiscal rules. I like the Minister a lot. We go back a way and have always had civil conversations, but if he does not believe or consider the level, type and definition of debt to be “fiscally significant”, then with the greatest respect perhaps the Treasury is not the right home for him. They are transparently fiscally significant, and an important part of the consideration we are talking about today.
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for inviting me to suggest whether I should try to find a job in another Department. I just point out that, having arrived at the Treasury, I have seen the impact of fiscally significant levels of debt after 14 years of the Conservative Government. Has he got anything to say to the House on that matter?
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, I have indeed. As I outlined in my original statement, the arguments the right hon. Member is making do not stack up with the facts. The economic circumstances that Labour inherited are better in many areas than those we inherited from them back in 2010. The economy is the fastest growing in the G7. On unemployment, every Labour Government since the second world war has increased it while in power, for us to then clear up and reduce it when we take over. Inflation was lower when Labour took power then when we inherited it, and annual debt was higher when we took over in 2010.
Labour Members keep saying all those things, but the challenge is that it does not stack up with the facts. They make arguments about the level of debt, as I outlined earlier, but they have already announced £10 billion for inflation-busting salary increasing for their union mates, £8 billion on energy provisions, and £7 billion on the national wealth fund. That is £25 billion of additional money that they have spent. If there is a black hole in the finances, it is clearly one of their own making by the announcements they have made since coming into government. That £25 billion is a huge amount of money, but I will finish discussing those points, because we had this debate earlier.
Nigel Huddleston
I will not give way at the moment, because I want to move on to some more positive things.
The Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household (Chris Elmore)
There is loads of time.
Nigel Huddleston
We have Third Reading as well, so let us enjoy ourselves. Just because the Government keep repeating the narrative does not make it true. I am sure they will continue to do so, but the £25 billion of additional spending that I have just outlined is a choice they have made. The arguments they are having to make—that they are having to cut payments to pensioners in response to the circumstances they have inherited—are not true because, as I outlined in my opening speech, it is a deliberate, long-stated policy choice articulated by the current Chancellor a decade ago. It is not a response to circumstances, but deliberate Labour policy.
On a more positive note, I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches today: the hon. Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Swindon North (Will Stone), for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), for Woking (Mr Forster), for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), and for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby). They have made incredible contributions. The breadth of experience that they bring to this Parliament is astounding, and I am largely talking here about Government Members. I say it with a great degree of respect, because in many circumstances—in fact, in nearly every single circumstance—they have replaced good friends of mine who contributed significantly to this House. They all have big shoes to fill, but what they have said today was impressive. In particular, those who spoke without notes are a lesson to us all.
What a beautiful tour we had around the United Kingdom. Everyone who spoke today spoke eloquently about their constituencies and their constituents and showcased their rich heritage and rich history. It was incredibly impressive. I am sure their constituents will be proud of what they have said. With that, I will finish my comments, but the debate will continue.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Darren Jones
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will not take up too much more time, but I will provide a final reminder of how important this legislation is. At the general election, the Government received a mandate for economic growth. Sustained growth is the only route to improve prosperity and to improve the living standards of the British people. It is now our national mission.
Economic stability is key to achieving this. We have seen what happens without it, when huge, unfunded fiscal commitments are made without proper scrutiny and when key economic institutions such as the OBR are sidelined. We cannot let ourselves get into that position again. Unfunded, unassessed spending commitments not only threaten the public finances, they can threaten people’s incomes and mortgages, as we saw under the previous Government.
I therefore encourage Conservative Members—who have told us today that, after 14 years of Conservative government, the economy has never been so good—to reflect, if only for a moment, on why they lost all credibility for economic competence and suffered the worst election result in their history.
Once again, I congratulate all my hon. Friends and other hon. Members on their excellent maiden speeches today. I thank hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, and I thank the Clerks and officials who have supported the Bill’s rapid passage.
The Budget Responsibly Bill forms a small but vital part of our plan to restore economic stability and deliver economic growth. For these reasons, I commend it to the House.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debates on the Bill, both today and before the summer recess, especially new Members who have made their maiden speech: the hon. Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Swindon North (Will Stone), for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), for Woking (Mr Forster), for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) and for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby). They all spoke incredibly well, with passion and eloquence, and we wish them well for their time in the House.
We Conservatives believe that sound public finances, fiscal responsibility and independent forecasts are the foundation of economic stability, which is why it was a Conservative Government who created the OBR more than a decade ago, and it is why today we tabled our amendments to improve the Bill and stop Labour moving the goalposts on the fiscal rule. By voting against our sensible proposal, Labour Members have shown they are not serious about our public finances. What are they trying to hide? It is clear that the purpose of the Bill is to distract everyone from Labour’s economic record and pave the way for tax rises in the autumn Budget.
Let us examine Labour’s economic record. The party has been in government for just nine weeks and has already carried out nine acts of economic vandalism. It has removed the winter fuel allowance from 10 million pensioners despite promising not to; caved in to its union paymasters by agreeing inflation-busting pay rises; failed to commit to investing 2.5% of national income on defence; cancelled vital infrastructure upgrades on the A27 and A303; cut funding for a vaccine manufacturing plant that would protect our health; imposed Whitehall diktats to concrete over our green spaces; stopped Conservative plans to build 40 new hospitals; scrapped funding for a next-generation supercomputer, undermining our status as a tech superpower; and appointed Labour donors to senior civil service jobs without open competition. Nine weeks, nine acts of economic vandalism.
We know there is more harm to come, with Labour’s autumn Budget set to raise taxes. During the election campaign, Labour promised over 50 times not to raise people’s taxes, but the Labour Government are planning to do just that. It will be hard-working people, pensioners and businesses who will pay the price. May I invite the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to return to the Dispatch Box to rule out raising taxes on working people, such as drivers, savers and business owners? At the same time, will he rule out changing the fiscal rules to allow for more Government borrowing and debt?
Darren Jones
I always welcome the opportunity to return to the Dispatch Box, and I thank the shadow Minister for inviting me to do so. Opposition provides an opportunity for reflection. While he is offering his thoughts on our two months in office—two months of great relief for the British people—does he have anything to say about his 14 years in office before the election?
Alan Mak
I think the answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is no, which confirms everything we already knew. It means that the people can never trust Labour with our economy, that Labour will raise taxes and cut investment at every opportunity and that Labour’s honeymoon is well and truly over.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
House of Commons Commission
Resolved,
That
(1) in pursuance of section 1(2)(d) of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, Rachel Blake be appointed to the House of Commons Commission, and
(2) in pursuance of section 1(2B) of that Act, the appointment of Shrinivas Honap as an external member of the Commission be extended to 30 September 2026.—(Lucy Powell.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Tim Farron to present a petition. The Member is not present.
Police Station Closure: Sutton Coldfield
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is not often I see so many Members in the House when I talk about the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, but it is a great honour to see so many here tonight. It is not often, either, that I have needed to raise a constituency matter on the Adjournment of the House, but the subject I address today is of such grave importance to my constituents and to the future security of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield that it demands urgent ministerial attention at the Dispatch Box.
The last time I held an Adjournment debate was in respect of the reassertion of the royal status of Sutton Coldfield. On that occasion, the Government made clear our right to use the word “royal” in the title of our town, and my constituents were grateful and deeply honoured by the reassertion of the royal status that we have now enjoyed for 496 years. Today, 10 years later, I am once again extremely grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate on the subject of the proposed closure of the Royal Sutton Coldfield police station. This proposal is being peddled by the Labour police and crime commissioner and has appalled virtually all my constituents and appears to be supported only by two Labour councillors in the royal town.
The royal town of Sutton Coldfield has more than 100,000 inhabitants. We also host the second biggest new housing development in the country—around 5,500 new homes in the Langley area. A town of this size requires a fully equipped, proactive and professional police station, housing all manner of relevant police assets. Our current police station has protected our town since 1960 and sits on the main road into the town centre, giving police officers immediate access.
Core policing means local policing, serving our community by dealing with all policing issues, reassuring the community and offering a safe refuge to victims of crime and harassment. Core policing is about a 24/7 response, where officers work locally to cover response calls and know their areas and the local hoods and villains. It is about a locally based criminal investigation department that can provide qualified investigators who focus on locally reported crimes, from minor offences to major crimes, such as robbery, serious assault and burglary.
Investigators become aware of local crimes and emerging problems through locally based intelligence. Neighbourhood officers know local issues and problems. They deal with minor offences and antisocial behaviour, providing proper reassurance to the local community. Our excellent business improvement district, led by Michelle Baker, which helps drive progress in the town centre, continually warns about the dangers of shoplifting and antisocial behaviour.
The police deal with local offenders, including sex offenders. They work with all agencies—probation services, social services, children’s services, the NHS and fire services—to address local issues. There are specially trained officers working with partner agencies, and they need privacy to work with victims of domestic violence and sex crimes, who need an appropriately sized safe space. A town of 100,000 souls and rising deserves all of that, and, in our case, we pay for it. The residents of Sutton Coldfield pay £8 million into the police precept every year. The estimated running cost of £303,000 a year for the current station represents less than 4% of the annual local police precept. I mention in passing that £20 million was found to renovate and embellish the police headquarters at Lloyd House.
Over recent years, I have made it crystal clear to my constituents, who so generously re-elected me at the last general election, that I would do my best to prevent any closure or any diminution in police activity in the royal town. I was very pleased to see that pledge mirrored in the election material produced by the newly elected Labour West Midlands Mayor, who pledged to halt the closure of all 27 police stations throughout the west midlands. He clearly has little influence with his Labour colleague.
Wendy Morton
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I think he would acknowledge that Sutton Coldfield police station covers more than Sutton Coldfield. It also covers communities in my constituency, particularly in the Streetly area. The Labour police and crime commissioner’s closure programme has been going on for far too long, and we need our police stations now more than ever.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come to the strategic point that she has made in just a moment.
I was pointing out the apparent lack of influence that the newly elected Labour Mayor of the West Midlands has with his colleagues, as, in his literature, he promised to keep open the 27 police stations. But not even a fortnight after the general election, I was astonished to see a “For Sale” sign in front of our police station. Neither I as the Member of Parliament, members of the Royal Sutton Coldfield town council nor any of our councillors were informed. Back in March 2023, there were promises by the PCC of consultation with our town council. Mr Speaker has made it clear that he wants to see greater respect for politics and politicians, but how can that noble aim be achieved when we see this sort of cynical, manipulative disregard of the wishes of the local people by those elected to serve our interests?
I have no doubt that some will argue that such a decision is an operational matter for the police. The whole point of police and crime commissioners is that they should represent the wishes of local people, and speak up for us in respect of policing decisions. I was a member of the Cabinet that introduced police and crime commissioners, and I have to say that in my view the jury is out on whether they have been a successful reform to our law and order architecture. If police and crime commissioners are captured by the local police establishment, that reform is by definition a failure. They are meant to represent us to the police, not the police to us. They are our servants, not our masters.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that in my constituency we do not have a single publicly accessible police station? They have been closed under a programme led by our previous police and crime commissioner. We have never had a Labour police and crime commissioner in Staffordshire; our police and crime commissioner has always been a Conservative. Would the right hon. Gentleman hold my commissioner accountable for those closures in the same way that he seeks to hold his commissioner accountable for his?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman must, as he is, champion the interests of his constituents as he sees fit, but I am very glad to hear that he had a Conservative police and crime commissioner. I do not know whether he still does, but if he does, I am sure that they will serve the community extremely well.
On the subject of consultation, the perfectly fair and legitimate request by myself and the leader of the Royal Sutton Coldfield Town Council, Mr Simon Ward, for the police and crime commissioner to come before the town council and answer questions from the councillors and public has been turned down. Instead, he wants a behind-closed-doors meeting with me, the leader of the council and a couple of other councillors. No! We want genuine public consultation—transparency, not behind-closed-doors private meetings.
I fully understand the need for value for money, and that the Royal Sutton Coldfield police station is at present inadequately used. Indeed, for many years at Christmas I visited our local police station to dispense House of Commons fudge and humbugs to the hard-working officers and staff who work there. Over recent years, the consumption of fudge and humbugs has diminished as resources have been taken away from the station, but instead of denuding police services from a significant location in a key strategic part of the west midlands to the north-east of Birmingham, the police service should be looking at basing far more of the services that I described earlier in a strategic hub, building on the advantage of a significant space in Sutton Coldfield, rather than trying to flog it off.
Our police station was once an operational command unit for the West Midlands police, which now looks set to be reduced to a refit of three small dilapidated semi-detached houses. What a contrast to the brilliant West Midlands Fire Service, which has invested in its strategic location in the royal town, adjacent to the police station. Before anyone suggests that this is all down to the wicked Tories mercilessly culling budgets, consider these four facts: funding for the West Midlands police has been increased by nearly £40 million, taking the annual police budget to £629.2 million; we have recruited an extra 2,176 police officers; we have invested £24 million in violence reduction units in the west midlands, to tackle the most devastating crime and put the worst criminals behind bars; and we have invested £9 million in the west midlands through the safer streets fund.
During the course of the campaign to save the police station, I have had the benefit of advice from several former West Midlands police officers responsible for policing in the royal town. I thank them for their years of diligent service and for their insights and advice. They told me that they were totally opposed to the closure of the police station, and that this was their professional opinion and advice. They made it clear that they opposed the loss of a significant visible deterrent and the easy access to a fast redeveloping town centre, with the recent reopening of the Royal Cinema—probably the finest boutique cinema anywhere in the UK—and the purchase of the Gracechurch shopping centre, as well as the millions of pounds of investment secured under the previous Conservative Government.
All that adds to the case for more policing in Sutton Coldfield. The loss of our police station will mean a significant reduction in services and a diminution of policing. The loss of the custody cells, currently mothballed, comes at a time when we have seen, from the recent disgraceful rioting and demonstrations, that circumstances could arise where there would be a strategic need for such things. Those regionally strategic facilities should not easily be disregarded. It is not that long ago that the expensive facilities were provided; indeed, I think I performed the opening ceremony. That strategic point is at the heart of the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who rightly talks about the importance of a strategic location north-east of Birmingham, serving both my and her constituents.
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend is so right to make that point. He demonstrates that police stations are integral to our communities, but with the potential loss of the Sutton Coldfield station and Aldridge under threat, what does that leave us with strategically on the eastern flank of the west midlands, at a time when we know resources have been increased? In the case of Aldridge police station, if we lose the base, we lose the base for our police officers as well. This should not be about “bricks or bobbies”; it should be about both and making sure we have a strong police presence in our communities.
Mr Mitchell
Once again my right hon. Friend puts her finger on the critical point and underlines the case that she and I are making for the good policing of our constituents. The sale of our police station will realise millions of pounds, much of which will clearly not be spent in Sutton Coldfield. In its place we are offered a low-grade option for policing with very limited facilities, selling short the people of Sutton Coldfield: at best, a small public contact centre, comprising three small police houses to the rear of the existing station. That is clearly a wholly inadequate marginal replacement for a proper police station. It is a measure designed to save money and not to enhance policing. It is well known that policing is local or it is nothing, and the proposed closure takes the local out of policing in the town.
The motto of the West Midlands police is “Forward in unity”. This decision takes us backwards in great disunity. The PCC’s proposal has been strongly condemned by residents, former police officers, all elected Conservative councillors, senior figures throughout the local community, and by me as their MP. I pay particular tribute to the vigorous campaigning and eloquent arguments put forward by Simon Ward, the leader of Royal Sutton Coldfield town council, and his hard-working councillors, by our energetic local Birmingham City Conservative councillors, including the highly effective David Pears, and by Jay Singh-Sohal, a former police and crime commissioner candidate with immense experience of policing issues.
However, those are but the tip of a huge local campaign, vigorously supported and engaged in across my constituency. On the day of the disastrous announcement of the sale of the police station, I received a letter in the post from the PCC—not addressing the pressing matter, but instead discussing his hopes on matters such as community policing. For community policing to be effective, it must take advice from the community it hopes to police and protect, and not press ahead without consulting that community.
With decisions such as this paying such little regard to local opinion and safety requirements, it cannot be a surprise that West Midlands police were placed under special measures under the Labour police and crime commissioner. Until he starts working alongside local communities, instead of dictating to them the fate of key services such as the police station, things may only get worse.
The decision to close the royal town’s police station is a mistake. I urge the Labour police and crime commissioner to reconsider his stance and to engage with humility, rigour and energy in a proper public consultation with the local people whom he serves, so that he can listen to their concerns directly and honour the West Midlands police mantra of “Forward in unity”.
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend is being very generous. On the subject of engagement, it is high time that the Labour police and crime commissioner engaged fully with us on Aldridge police station and came clean about his intentions. I want to make sure that he is left in no doubt that my right hon. Friend and I will continue to fight tooth and nail for these vital services that our communities deserve. It is wrong, as I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees, that resources are all too easily directed to other parts of the west midlands, particularly to Lloyd House, when we have needs in our communities as well.
Mr Mitchell
I must draw my remarks to a close so that we can hear from the Minister, on whose appointment I wish belatedly to congratulate her, but my right hon. Friend once again makes a critical point about consultation on these decisions. As I have said, the whole point of having police and crime commissioners is that they should listen to their local community and represent their heartfelt views. I hope that by listening to what my right hon. Friend and I and so many others are saying in our respective areas, the police and crime commissioner will have another look at this matter and see what he can do to satisfy us on a vexed subject that has caused enormous local anxiety, fear and pain about such a sharp diminution in the policing resources that we all wish to see.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to see him back in his place after the general election. I know that he has a very long-standing interest in this issue, and I commend him on taking the necessary steps to secure this debate. I think he first raised this subject in 2018, if my records are correct. As came through in his very powerful remarks, the subject of the debate is very important to him and to his constituents.
I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who made interventions. I will state at the outset that as a constituency MP, I fully appreciate that the status of police stations can be the focus of significant attention and generate strong feelings in communities. Of course, I am not as familiar with developments in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield as he is. He will also understand that, in the main, we are talking about decisions and considerations that are not within the direct purview of central Government and myself as the Minister for Policing. Indeed, he admitted that he was part of the Government who introduced police and crime commissioners to give that accountability at a local level. I remind him that we had elections for police and crime commissioners earlier this year, in which the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands was elected on his own mandate.
I say this not to try to minimise the matter at hand, but simply to set out the context of my response. I stress the general importance of a strong local police presence. Before I come on to the particular situation in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I will make a general point about this Government’s recognition of the importance of police forces having a strong local footprint. I think we would all acknowledge that technology has changed the way that the vast majority of us communicate and interact with the world, and it is therefore right to have a range of means by which people can contact and engage with the police, including online and by telephone, but these channels should not be seen as a substitute for a physical police presence, such as that provided by police stations. None of us would wish to see the possibility of going to a local police station to get assistance or to speak to an officer consigned to history, and it is important for many of our constituents.
I know that the focus of this debate is very specific, but I will make two broader points. First, the Government need no reminders about the importance of that strong local police presence in communities. After all, it is this Government who have committed to restoring neighbourhood policing in all our communities, so that people feel confident that they are being protected and our laws enforced.
Secondly, Members will be aware that police forces are operationally independent from Ministers and Government, and that is absolutely as it should be. It means that the democratically elected police and crime commissioners, and the operationally independent chief constables, are responsible for taking decisions on police stations and their whole estate. In doing so, they will use their judgment, local knowledge and expertise to ensure that the use of their estate gives the best service to the community and fulfils value-for-money obligations. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be concerned about getting value for money.
Let me turn to Royal Sutton Coldfield. I know that the police station has served the town for many years—since 1960, as I understand it. The police and crime commissioner’s office has confirmed to me directly, and to my officials, that although the police station is currently listed for sale, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, it remains operationally open and with police access as normal.
A new police station, located on Anchorage Road, immediately adjacent to the existing building—I understand the distance between them is 300 yards—has been confirmed as the new police station site by the police and crime commissioner. It is smaller—I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said—but I understand that the current building is occupied at only 20%, meaning that 80% of it is not occupied at the moment, which does not seem to be value for money. The smaller police station will be more modern and more appropriately sized for the local presence, based on the current levels of occupancy, and it is expected to be ready to move into next year.
The police and crime commissioner has already publicly committed to the new station housing the response team, the neighbourhood policing teams and the criminal investigation teams, and it will be open to the public. Furthermore, ownership of the current police station will be retained until the new police station is open. It has also been confirmed to me that there will be no disruption or break in the public’s access to the police. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman looks like he wants to intervene, so I happily give way.
Mr Mitchell
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I completely agree with and accept a lot of what she said prior to her last point. The burden of the case that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) have been making is that more resources should be put into the existing police station, which is underused, as the Minister rightly said. The police should not be selling it; they should be reinforcing it with services that are needed not just in the royal town but regionally. The three dilapidated houses at the back will in no way whatsoever provide a full police perspective of the sort that the royal town and adjacent areas should get. There is no comparison between what is proposed—in spite of the language that the Minister has received from the police and crime commissioner—and what exists at the moment. We are arguing that a strategic increase in services should be put into the existing building, which, as she rightly says, has served the town and the area since 1960. Will she perhaps reflect back to the police and crime commissioner the importance of engaging with the local community, in a way that he has not, which would be good both for the position of police and crime commissioner and for the local community?
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman makes his case, and I am sure that the police and crime commissioner will have heard it. I further understand that there has been an offer—which I think the right hon. Gentleman referred to—to have that meeting with the police and crime commissioner, to discuss the options and what he is planning to do. Can I also gently say, as I did at the beginning of my remarks, that it is for the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable to decide how best to use the assets available to them? I understand that the chief constable is absolutely committed to this new way of providing the police station in this area. Operationally, that is what he believes is the best way of providing policing to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Before I finish, I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude and thanks to all our serving police officers, police community support officers and specials. I am sure that all Members of the House will agree that they do an amazing job in very difficult circumstances, particularly over the past few weeks when we have seen disorder on our streets. As I have set out and tried to explain to the right hon. Gentleman, decisions about police stations are ultimately matters that sit outside my remit as a Minister. In any event, I hope that it has been helpful to have this discussion this evening and to talk through some of the issues. I have set out the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a strong, visible neighbourhood policing offer in all our communities, which is central to what this Government will deliver through our safer streets mission. I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue on the Floor of the House this evening, along with other right hon. and hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.