Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
This Government appreciate the role of farmers and everyone involved in our agricultural sector, and I have been delighted to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and other stakeholders on numerous occasions. On each, I have reiterated that the Government want to strike a fair balance between supporting farmers and fixing our public finances and the public services on which our rural communities rely. As both hon. Members will be aware, the vast majority of farmers will not be affected at all. They will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have always done. Only the richest estates will be asked to pay, not small family farms, and that is a policy that we on this side of the House are proud to support.
Charlie Dewhirst
I welcome the new ministerial team to the Dispatch Box, and particularly the Secretary of State, who is back as Secretary of State for Scotland after nearly 20 years. Farmers watching that response will be thinking, “What a load of tosh!” What representations have the Secretary of State and the Minister made to the Chancellor on behalf of farmers in Scotland ahead of the Budget?
Kirsty McNeill
As I mentioned, we are in regular dialogue with farming stakeholders and we regularly consider the evidence that is presented to us. I would stress that, while we will always give evidence due consideration—indeed, the Prime Minister said that from this very Dispatch Box last week at Prime Minister’s questions—we will not deviate from our policy objective, which is both to raise revenue and to introduce greater fairness to our tax system. That is exactly what this change does.
Blake Stephenson
It is clear that Scottish Labour and this Government do not care and do not understand our rural communities. If we have no farmers, there is no food. Will the Minister listen to the voices of rural Scots, NFU Scotland and communities up and down this country, and ask the Chancellor to rethink this ruinous inheritance tax reform?
Kirsty McNeill
I myself am a representative of rural Scots, as indeed is the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is meeting farmer representatives in his constituency this very week. We are in ongoing dialogue with our constituents and with farming stakeholders. I reiterate that what we say in the course of those dialogues is that we must introduce greater fairness to the system and that three quarters of farmers will not be impacted at all.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
There are many factors that make family farms viable, including the ability to work the land and carry out what is a very physically demanding job. Does the Minister agree that tackling the fundamental problems in our NHS and the growing waiting lists in Scotland must be a priority when balancing competing pressures, given that poor access to healthcare disproportionately affects those working in Scotland’s farming and rural constituencies?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. Since the election, the UK Government’s plan for change has delivered an extra £5.2 billion to the Scottish Government—funding that can be used to improve the performance of devolved public services such as the NHS. In June, an additional £9.1 billion of funding for the Scottish Government was announced in the spending review, so rural communities like my own are right to ask when they will see improvements in their access to healthcare. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend charities such as the Farm Safety Foundation and its brilliant Yellow Wellies initiative for the work that they do to support the mental and physical health of farmers and all in our rural communities.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The proposed changes to agricultural property relief in Scotland will ensure that, by still providing full relief for the first £1 million of assets, farmers continue to benefit from Government support far beyond that which is available to other assets. Given that 7% of claimants—117 claimants—receive two fifths of all agricultural property relief at a cost of some £219 million, does the Minister agree that this Government’s reforms are essential not only for fairness but to help fund vital public services in rural Scotland?
Kirsty McNeill
Our reforms mean that the majority—almost three quarters—of those claiming the relief will not be affected. Only the richest estates will be asked to pay more. This is a fair approach that balances fixing our public finances with maintaining support for small family farms and businesses.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The agricultural sector is woven into the fabric of communities across Scotland. It employs thousands and contributes millions annually to the economy, but farmers across Scotland have been left in fear for their families’ future and their way of life because this Government want to tax them out of existence. Despite the clear messages from the farming community, supported by the NFUS, this Government are ploughing on regardless and completely ignoring the damage they are doing. The truth is that they do not understand—and worse: because those people do not vote Labour, they do not care, do they?
Kirsty McNeill
I will reiterate it in case the shadow Secretary of State did not hear me: both myself and the Secretary of State represent semi-rural and farming constituencies. We are in ongoing dialogue with constituents. We absolutely understand the pressures they face, which is why we have said that we will support family farms and that only the very richest will be affected. Our constituents rely on public services and they require investment in those public services, and that is exactly what this tax change was designed to do: introduce fairness but also raise revenue that will benefit all our communities, including rural Scots.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Archibald Young, a foundry in my constituency, manufactures components that are vital to our national security, yet it now faces a devastating blow from Labour’s tax changes. We are hearing that food production—another cornerstone of national security—will also be decimated by these measures. This issue goes to the heart of the protection of our country. Does the Minister agree that Scottish businesses that are essential to national security must be safeguarded, and will she commit to meeting me and others with similar concerns to discuss that?
Kirsty McNeill
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady, and I welcome her to her new position. Food security is indeed national security, and national security is the No. 1 priority of this Government. We are trying to safeguard it in a number of ways, including through our commitment to food security and, indeed, energy security. I would be delighted to discuss it with her further.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Oil and gas from the North sea will remain part of our energy system for decades to come. As a Government, we are strengthening our energy security, and as part of that effort, we are investing in home-grown clean power and energy through Great British Energy. We are committed to a fair and orderly transition. Next week, I will be in Aberdeen to meet energy companies from across the north-east.
Dr Spencer
We all know that the Government’s energy policy is unsustainable. It has even been reported that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is looking at authorising tiebacks to access new oil and gas wells using existing infrastructure in the North sea. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that if we want to increase energy security and reduce energy prices for households and businesses, we must expand the use of the energy resources available to us, including North sea oil and gas?
Mr Alexander
As I sought to reflect in the first answer, oil and gas will be a central part of our energy mix in the United Kingdom for decades to come, but it is also right to recognise that there is a transition that needs to be managed and there was an abject failure by the previous Government to manage it. That is why we saw tens of thousands of jobs going in the North sea without the level of investment that we are now seeing from GB energy to manage that transition effectively.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Conservatives have got a cheek? Some 77,000 jobs drifted out of the North sea under their Government, and they did not lift a finger. This Government, along with the Scottish Government, invested £18 million in a transition fund to help oil and gas workers move into energy jobs. That will be an uneven transition, but it is an inevitable one. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is what comes from having a Government with an industrial strategy that puts workers first?
Mr Alexander
I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend from the Western Isles. The North sea has provided decades of good jobs, not just for people from the Western Isles and across Scotland but from the whole of the United Kingdom. The last Conservative Government did not believe in industrial strategy—it is as basic as that. It is not just a difference of policy; it is a difference of philosophy. We believe in open markets and an active state. That is why we set up GB Energy, that is why there is a transition fund and that is why people can rely on Labour.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Scotland after his sabbatical over the last 20 or so years. The messianic zeal of his colleague the Energy Secretary to see the destruction of our oil and gas industry is having real-life consequences. Scottish workers are being made unemployed in their thousands, while this Government ban the drilling and exploration of oil and gas in British waters, and import more gas from Norway, which gets it from the very same sea that we are prevented from exploiting. Come on, Secretary of State; it is all a little unhinged, isn’t it?
Mr Alexander
Where to begin? We have a Government that have invested in GB Energy and that have a transition fund up against an Opposition that abjectly failed in their responsibilities towards the North sea. We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) that 77,000 jobs were lost. That is the record that they own, and we will continue to point it out.
Andrew Bowie
The Secretary of State for Energy is not the messiah. Week after week, I come to this Chamber to ask Energy Ministers and Scotland Office Ministers why they are content to sacrifice one of this country’s greatest national assets and allow highly skilled workers to go on the scrap heap or go overseas. As Scotland’s man at the Cabinet table, the Secretary of State knows that his job is to speak up for those people who are losing their jobs today, not to defend the Secretary of State for Energy. Will he explain that to the people of Aberdeen when he visits next week?
Mr Alexander
I gently remind the shadow Secretary of State that there is a difference between abuse and argument, and in relation to his substantive arguments, of course I am happy to be Scotland’s voice at the Cabinet table. That is why only next week I will be meeting a range of energy companies based in Aberdeen and listening directly to them. That dialogue has already started. I think we can do better than his question.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
The Scotland Office is backing Scotland’s communities with our £292 million pride in place investment. The plan will support grassroots movements that restore local people’s power, boost national pride and help people get on in life. It will revitalise our high streets, create jobs and improve safety and security. More than that, it will give expression to this Government’s core belief that communities are powerful and that in every corner of our country, we find millions of so-called ordinary people doing their best and doing their bit to transform the places they love for the people they love.
Douglas McAllister
The UK Government are investing more than £41 million of funding in my constituency, including the recently announced pride in place award. That will unlock the potential of my West Dunbartonshire constituency, matching the level of ambition I have to regenerate our town centres and communities and make them fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is in stark contrast to the SNP, which has given up on our communities right across Scotland and in West Dunbartonshire?
Kirsty McNeill
I commend my hon. Friend on his ambition for his seat and his sterling advocacy for it. He is right that this funding will help revitalise our high streets, create jobs and improve safety and security in Scotland. He is also right that the SNP is desperately out of touch with its squabbling over independence while services across Scotland are at breaking point.
Pamela Nash
Since the election last year when Labour came to power, our constituents in Scotland have seen their friends in England and Wales see real improvements in their communities and public services, while they look on and wonder what the SNP Government are squandering Scotland’s share on. Does the Minister agree that key to the success of the pride in place funding and projects, including the £41.5 million coming to Lanarkshire, is that we are putting power directly in the hands of people to make decisions about investments in their own communities?
Kirsty McNeill
My hon. Friend is right that both her constituents and mine look with some envy to the other side of the border where millions of extra NHS appointments have been secured while waiting lists in Scotland go up and up. Local communities are at the heart of Scottish life, which is why we are giving them control over hundreds of millions of pounds of investment to revitalise their high streets, take ownership of important local assets and build thriving and prosperous places to work, live and visit.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Government’s pride in place initiative—their equivalent of levelling up—should be great and should be felt across Scotland, but unfortunately we are feeling the opposite in north-east Scotland because of the Government’s energy policies. Our high streets need regeneration after a decade of disastrous decline in the sector, whether that is from SNP or Labour policies. How will the Government act to ensure that our high streets in north-east Scotland will not be further decimated?
Kirsty McNeill
I remind the hon. Lady that, of course, her constituents benefit from a city region and growth deal—there is investment going into her area. If she has complaints about the decline of her constituency, I suggest that she looks at her colleagues and holds them accountable for 14 years of catastrophic economic mismanagement by the Conservatives.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
As long as I get any opportunity, I will continue to ask why Perth, and Perth and Kinross, is not getting one penny from the current allocation. Why has Perth and Kinross never had one single penny from any Government allocation? Why did this Labour Government take away the £5 million that we finally got from the Conservatives? Finally, when is Perth, and Perth and Kinross, going to get its fair share?
Kirsty McNeill
The allocations under the pride in place programme have been evidence led, based on data and on a formula that is progressive and puts money into the pockets of those who need it most. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about where money in Perth and Kinross has gone, I suggest he asks the First Minister of Scotland, who is from his own party and has received more than £5 billion. His constituents, like mine, will be asking, “Where’s the money gone, John?”
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
This Government are taking action to support vulnerable families this winter, including by expanding the warm home discount scheme, which means that more than 500,000 households now benefit from that £150 payment—one in five Scottish households.
Mr MacDonald
Will the Minister acknowledge the unfairness that my constituents in Skye, and indeed people all across rural Scotland and rural Great Britain, are paying four times as much to heat their houses using locally generated renewable electricity—often while looking at wind turbines outside their windows—than those in cities who heat their houses using imported high-carbon gas, which is largely due to the fact that the environmental tariffs fall wrongly on the renewables and not on the carbon fuel gas?
Mr Alexander
Communities can feel tangible benefits, but those community benefits are largely voluntary at the moment. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however; that is why this Government are considering mandating the provision of community benefit funds for low-carbon energy infrastructure across the United Kingdom. We will have more to say in our plans when they are set out later this year.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is estimated that more than 70,000 households in Glasgow live in fuel poverty. The UK Government’s extension to the warm home discount will mean that many of those families receive money off their energy bills. Can the Secretary of State outline how people can access that support?
Mr Alexander
The good news is that those in receipt of pension credit that tops them up to a minimum weekly income will continue to receive the discount automatically. The scheme is opening again this month; anyone who thinks they may be eligible, in Glasgow or elsewhere across Scotland, should contact their energy supplier.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I was elected on a very clear manifesto, which made clear that this UK Labour Government do not support independence or another referendum. If, after 18 years, the SNP is not prepared to run on its record, that begs the question: what kind of record have they left, after 18 years in power? Behind the smokescreen it has tried to create by talking about independence, we know the reality: one in six of us on waiting lists, rising violence and falling standards in our schools. Frankly, Scotland deserves better.
Jack Rankin
I thank the Secretary of State for his unequivocal rejection of separatism. He will always find on the Conservative side fellow colleagues who treasure this United Kingdom and want to shout about the most successful alliance in political history. What specific steps can he take to prevent more taxpayers’ cash being squandered as the SNP pursues its doomed dream?
Mr Alexander
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made clear, we have committed £5.2 billion to the Scottish Government this year—the largest settlement in the 25 years of devolution. There is a very basic question that we Scots are asking: “Where’s the money gone, John?” The reality is that our services are getting worse, not better, and we see industrial-level waste from the SNP. That is why it is time for a new direction.
Brendan O’Hara
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his place, although it seems that his appointment has not been universally welcomed. Indeed, I hear that the Daily Record, having asked his Labour colleagues for their opinion, feared an asterisk shortage. One particularly caustic comrade said:
“If I had a pound for everyone who liked Douglas, I would have 50p.”
But rest assured, Mr Speaker, his appointment was welcomed with open arms on the SNP Benches, and I have to admit to having a grudging admiration for him as someone who cares not about the opinion of other people. But with Labour tanking in the polls, and independence the majority view in—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr O’Hara, this is meant to be a question, not a statement.
Mr Alexander
Well, Mr Speaker, the quality of the SNP’s contributions does not seem to have improved since 2007, and neither has its arguments. In the face of failing schools and hospitals, and the inability to build ferries in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, what do we see? Once again, dreary documents about independence. The reality is that the SNP has let Scotland down, and Scotland deserves better. That is why we are up for the fight in May.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The SNP’s renewed chatter on independence is understandable, because it wants to distract from its abysmal record of running down our public services. Given that its plans for defence in an independent Scotland include giving up the nuclear deterrent and replacing it with little more than a Scottish navy comprising the Waverley and the Vital Spark, does the Secretary of State agree that Vladimir Putin will be rubbing his hands with glee at the SNP’s latest outbursts?
Mr Alexander
I am a great fan of Para Handy, the Vital Spark and the Waverley, but I would not want to offer them in the face of Vladimir Putin as an approach to Euro-Atlantic security. The reality is that we have student gesture politics from the Scottish National party. I met with the major defence companies in Greenock last Friday, and they were very clear that we are forgoing industrial opportunities now. There is a real cost to the incompetence and student naiveté of the Scottish National party.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Businesses in my constituency and across Scotland need stability, certainty and opportunity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is what they are getting from a Labour Government, which stands in stark contrast to the instability and uncertainty of the SNP and its obsession with independence?
Mr Alexander
Returning to the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State for Scotland, I think it is striking that the SNP’s answers are no better than they were in 2017, 2014 or 2021. I simply ask: what is its policy on a Scottish currency? What is its policy on foreign reserves? What is its position on a Scottish pension? It is no better at answering those questions now than it was 20 years ago.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
May I join other Opposition Members in welcoming the Secretary of State to his place? I wish him well in that job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) is not the only one with a quote that might be of interest to the Secretary of State; I have another one here. Can he tell us who said this? “If there is a majority”—an SNP majority—“it has got to be looked at in Westminster.” Who said that?
Mr Alexander
I sense that it might be myself. We would take seriously any SNP majority, but if the SNP is returned to office, I hope it will do better than it has done over the past 18 years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we on the Government Benches are not anticipating defeat; we are working for victory.
Stephen Gethins
Well, this might get just a little bit awkward. The quote was not from the Secretary of State, although I welcome his contribution; it was actually from his boss, the leader of the Labour party and the current Prime Minister, who is about to turn up. That is very awkward indeed—[Interruption.] There he is. Will he stick to that commitment, or will we see Labour break yet another promise?
Mr Alexander
Not least because he has just turned up, let me say that I always agree with my boss. The reality is that we are clear and unequivocal that we do not want the break-up of the United Kingdom. As Scots, we made our choice in 2014, and that was for a better future within the United Kingdom.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
This Government are working tirelessly to reduce the cost of living in Scotland. We have introduced a national living wage, delivered a generational upgrade to workers’ rights and helped the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times, putting money into people’s pockets across Scotland. Furthermore, thanks to our stewardship, the International Monetary Fund forecasts the UK to be the second-fastest growing G7 economy this year.
Ben Lake
Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where child poverty is falling, and it is also the only part of Great Britain with a non-Labour Government. I am sure the Minister agrees that the rest of the UK deserves better, so will she be calling on the Chancellor to scrap the two-child cap in the upcoming Budget?
Kirsty McNeill
A child poverty strategy is on the way and will be released in due course. I can underscore our commitment to fighting child poverty with every breath we have. That is what Labour Governments have always done, and it is what this Labour Government will do, too.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
This weekend, thousands of people will march in Edinburgh to say that Scotland demands better. We are right to do so, because the Poverty Alliance says that one in six adults in Scotland—around 1.2 million people—are living in food insecurity. What are the Scotland Office and the wider Labour Government doing to end food insecurity for Scots?
Kirsty McNeill
Our commitment to ending poverty is clear. We have had a clear focus on living standards; work is increasingly now paying; and we are focusing on ensuring that none of Scotland’s children is subject to the poverty that the hon. Member so vividly describes.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I am sure that the whole House will know that this weekend the Rugby League Ashes returns for the first time since 2003. I place on the record my very best wishes to the England team, who will make the major rumble in London this weekend—the first of three matches against Australia.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On Sunday we unveiled Labour’s plan to recruit hundreds of thousands of workers into clean energy, creating quality, well-paid jobs in every quarter of the United Kingdom. On Monday we announced the new V-level qualification, to make sure that every young person has the skills to realise their potential. On Tuesday our first ever regional investment summit in Birmingham secured £10 billion of investment. And today we are announcing tough new penalties to end the scandal of pollution in our rivers and seas. That is national renewal with a Labour Government.
Yesterday I met Claire Throssell, who is with us in the Gallery today. Her two young sons, Paul and Jack, were murdered 11 years ago this week by her abusive ex-husband after a family court ordered that he should have unsupervised contact with them. Claire’s bravery and her campaign are humbling, and today I am pleased that we can announce that we will repeal the presumption of parental involvement, putting children’s safety first.
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 today.
Dr Savage
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s sympathies extended towards Claire, and I commend her for her bravery.
I regret to inform the House that yesterday there was a very serious breach of national security, when my Prime Minister’s question was photographed heading into No. 10 in a transparent folder. The nation can rest easy, as on this occasion no state secrets were revealed. However, it does make me wonder whether this Government can be trusted with a digital ID scheme that is mandatory in all but name. [Laughter.] I like to keep the Prime Minister on his toes. Will he reverse this misguided scheme, or will he persist with a plan that makes all of our personal data vulnerable to hacks and attacks?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for her question. The whole point of digital ID, of course, is that you cannot see it, so that should at least deal with her first concern. It is important that we make access to public services as easy as possible for people. We all know the difficulties that so many people have with accessing services, and digital ID has been shown in other countries to help. I do think this is an important step forward. I also think it is very important as part of our plan to tackle those who are entering our country illegally.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I know that the Housing Minister will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to help unlock new homes for her constituents. We are working closely with local authorities through our small sites aggregator to build new affordable homes on brownfield sites. My goal is to restore the dream of home ownership, which was stolen by the Opposition when they were in government.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I first pay tribute to the former Conservative MP Oliver Colvile, who has very sadly passed away after a long illness? Colleagues will remember him for his love of cricket and, of course, hedgehogs. He will be very much missed.
Four victims on the rape gangs survivors panel have resigned, and they have resigned because they have lost all confidence in the Government’s inquiry, so I am giving my first question to one of them—to Fiona. She said:
“Being dismissed and contradicted by a minister when you’re telling the truth takes you right back to that feeling of not being believed all over again.”
Fiona’s question is simple:
“what’s the point in speaking up if we’re just going to be called liars?”
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that on behalf of Fiona. Let me give Fiona and the House my answer. The grooming scandal was one of the worst scandals of our time. Women and girls were abused and exploited by predatory gangs of men, and survivors have been ignored for many years, including by the state, which of course is supposed to protect them. My vow to Fiona and to them is that this national inquiry will change that.
I do acknowledge that in recent days some members, including Fiona, have decided to step away from the panel. Should they wish to return, the door will always be open, but even if they do not, we owe it to them, to Fiona and to the country to answer the concerns that they have raised. The inquiry is not and will never be watered down, its scope will not change, it will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders, and we will find the right person to chair it.
I can tell the House today that Dame Louise Casey will now support the work of the inquiry, and it will get to the truth. Injustice will have no place to hide.
Mrs Badenoch
I doubt that Fiona will be satisfied with that answer. The Prime Minister says that they could return to the panel if they wish to. Why would they do that? The Government have been engaged in a briefing war against survivors. Elizabeth—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They say “Shame.” Why do they not listen to what Elizabeth had to say? Elizabeth, who was abused in Rotherham from the age of 14, had this to say about the Government:
“It has created a toxic environment for survivors”.
They were looking for answers from the Prime Minister, and what they have heard is Labour MPs saying “Shame” at their words.
Yesterday, the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that Elizabeth was wrong. Who should we believe: the Prime Minister’s Safeguarding Minister or Elizabeth?
The Prime Minister
Let me put on record my respect for all the survivors, who have been through the most awful ordeal, and I want to thank those who have been involved so far for their work in the process. What we are trying to do is to get this right, and to have an inquiry with survivors at its heart. As the Safeguarding Minister told the House yesterday, that is obviously not easy. They have all come with difficult experiences. There are a wide range of views, understandably, and every survivor does bring their own painful experience to this. The survivors met the prospective chairs this week, and we want them to have the chance to engage. I want survivors to be at the heart of this. I want an inquiry that can get to the truth. These are the hard yards—I accept that—but I want to press on and get this right.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that he wants survivors to be at the heart of this, but in his first PMQs this year he said that we did not need a national inquiry. When he did, all of these Labour Members cheered. They were nodding their heads, including the Safeguarding Minister. They voted against the national inquiry three times. [Interruption.] Yes, they did. They voted against the national inquiry three times, so the victims do not believe them. They can say no as much as they like, but it is on the record. They do not like it, but it is true. Now, one of the victims has quit. Contrary to what the Prime Minister has just said and what the Home Secretary wrote this morning, the victims believe that the inquiry will downplay the racial and religious motivations behind their abuse. Are the victims not right when they call it a cover-up?
The Prime Minister
Let me reassure the victims and the House that the scope of the inquiry will not be diluted, and we will not shy away from cultural or religious issues. It was I who commissioned Baroness Casey in the first place. She gave me her recommendation in relation to a national inquiry, and we have, in the four months since then, finalised the panel and are trying to get the leadership of this inquiry right, with survivors at the heart. In that period, we have also reopened 1,200 historical closed cases. I have long argued that the criminal route, where it can be pursued, is the right route for perpetrators.
We have introduced mandatory reporting of child sex abuse, which I happen to think is a vital safeguard— I have been campaigning for that for over a decade. I asked the last Government to introduce it, and that fell on deaf ears. That mandatory reporting of child sex abuse is something that each and every Conservative Member voted against earlier this year. We have given victims and survivors the power to seek an independent review of their cases. But in relation to this inquiry, I want to go as fast as we can to get the justice that is deserved, and I want to ensure that survivors are involved in that. We are balancing the two to get this right, and I will continue to do so.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about mandatory reporting. I will remind him what Fiona asked: what is the point, if the victims are not going to be believed? What would be the point of mandatory reporting? All of this is happening now—all that he is saying—is because four of those victims resigned from the survivors panel. If they had not done that, the Government would have continued with the watering down, which we all know they were carrying out. So yes, the victims are right to be worried.
The Prime Minister also talked about looking for a chair. It has been 10 months since we first called for a national inquiry—10 months. It is shocking that the Government still do not have a chair. One of the final two candidates has pulled out, leaving a former police officer who the victims do not want. What they do want is a judge. They deserve a judge. We are talking about the industrial-scale rape of women and girls. Unlike most of the inquiries going on, why is it that this inquiry does not deserve a judge?
The Prime Minister
Can I answer that? It is a serious point, because whether the inquiry should be judge-led was looked at by Louise Casey. She decided against that for a reason, and her reasons were twofold—I will spell them out. The first was the speed with which we could do this, and it would have been—[Interruption.] They asked the question. The first reason was the speed with which we could do this. The second is really important: I was absolutely determined that criminal investigations would go on at the same time as the inquiry. One of the problems that judge-led inquiries run into—I have seen and experienced this myself—is that they are often held back until the end of the criminal investigations, and I was determined that we would be able to run the two together. It is because of that that we have been able to reopen 1,200 historical cases at the same time.
The Leader of Opposition asks what is the point of the mandatory reporting that she voted against. I do not think she understands how it works. This is—[Interruption.] This is mandatory reporting of those who have had allegations made to them and there is clear enough evidence that they have not then passed that on. That is a fundamental problem in the system. That is why we have changed the law. The Conservatives should hang their heads in shame for having voted against that vital protection.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister should hang his head in shame for calling this a “far-right bandwagon” when we first raised this issue. The deputy leader or the future deputy leader—we all know who is going to win—called this a dog whistle.
What we need to think about right now is the victims and the survivors. I spoke to one of them yesterday. Let us remember that these are victims who waived their anonymity—an incredibly difficult thing to do—and they believe that the Safeguarding Minister has lied to them and about them. One of the survivors has said:
“Jess Phillips needs to be removed because I don’t think her conduct during this…has been acceptable for the position that she holds”.
[Interruption.] Those are not my words; those are the words of a survivor. It is a shame that Labour MPs are drowning that out. The hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley has clearly lost the confidence of the victims. Does she still have the confidence of the Prime Minister?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that, even if we are quoting somebody else, we should not quote a direct allegation against a Member of this House? I am sure that that is not what was intended.
The Prime Minister
I respect the views of all the survivors, and there are different views—I accept that—but I think the Safeguarding Minister has probably more experience than any other person in this House in dealing with violence against women and girls, and alongside her will be Louise Casey. These two individuals have spent decades—decades—standing up for those who have been abused and sexually exploited, and I absolutely think they are the right people to take this forward.
Mrs Badenoch
The Safeguarding Minister does not have more experience than the survivors. The fact is that, just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister was standing there telling us he had full confidence in the best friend of a convicted paedophile, so it is no surprise the people have no confidence in what he is saying. The victims have said that she should be sacked. We on this side of the House believe that she should be sacked, because this is about Labour failure. Labour never wanted this inquiry; we demanded it. It has been Labour-run councils—Trafford, Bradford, Blackpool—that have tried to suppress the truth. It is Labour Ministers attacking the victims; we are standing up for them. How is it that, whether it is rape or Chinese espionage, when the Prime Minister is in a position to do something about it, it is always someone else’s fault?
The Prime Minister
My priorities are listening to and standing up for the survivors. That is why we are doing the work on the inquiry, why we have reopened the criminal cases and why we brought in mandatory reporting. I would gently remind the Conservatives that they had 14 years in office and they barely mentioned this issue, and where there were inquiries, they failed to act on them. We have done more in the time we have been in office than they did in 14 long years.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Of course, I join in thanking the staff at Maghull health park. We are investing £15.6 billion to bring down mental health waiting lists—vital in continuing to drive down inactivity and helping people to get the care that they need. In the upcoming multi-year capital budgets, we will enable NHS trusts to accelerate decisions on local priorities, and that could include developments like the mental health digital research centre that my hon. Friend champions.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I agree with the Prime Minister’s words about Claire Throssell. I agree with him that it is right that we change the law, and I hope that it is named after her sons, Jack and Paul.
Given the revelations about Royal Lodge, does the Prime Minister agree that this House needs to scrutinise the Crown Estate properly to ensure taxpayers’ interests are protected? The Chancellor herself has said that the current arrangements are wrong, so will the Prime Minister support a Select Committee inquiry so that all those involved can be called to give evidence, including the current occupant?
The Prime Minister
It is important, in relation to all Crown properties, that there is proper scrutiny. I certainly support that.
Ed Davey
I hope the House can look at that properly and that all people can be summoned to the relevant committee.
Turning to the economy, I know Labour Members are relieved—they are finally allowed to say that the Conservatives’ Brexit deal is a disaster. But that cannot just be a political ruse to attack the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), however much he deserves it. Even worse, given that we still have the highest inflation in the G7, it must not be a smokescreen to raise taxes on ordinary people. It must be a call to action. Will the Prime Minister act now to repair the Brexit damage by negotiating a new UK-EU customs union to boost Britain’s trade and grow our economy?
The Prime Minister
No, I do not think that is the way forward. What we have done is to have a much closer relationship with the EU, recognising the damage done by the flawed Brexit deal that the Conservative party negotiated. We have also struck deals with India and the US, secured record investment into this country and have the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
So, this is a local Conservative council telling my hon. Friend not to point out potholes in case it has to fill them! That is outrageous—just like the record of the last 14 years. We know how problematic, dangerous and costly potholes are to drivers. That is why we have delivered record investment to maintain our roads and fix potholes. That is £1.6 billion. That money has been given to councils, but it comes with strings. My message to the council to reinforce that is clear: “Use the money, fix the roads and show how you are carrying out repairs, or lose the money.” It is councils that should get on with the job of fixing our roads. I will make sure the Roads Minister follows up with my hon. Friend.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Given that the TUC has calculated that the wealthiest 10% of households in the UK hold more wealth than everyone else in the country put together, does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is inequality, not immigration, that is a threat to our country?
The Prime Minister
We need to deal both with levels of immigration and with inequality, and that is what the Government are doing. As we get on with trying to boost our economy, may I gently point out that if we want more equality and if we want our economy to be stronger, the hon. Lady’s party needs to start voting for some of the measures that will make it necessary?
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend and to all those who spoke in the baby loss debate last Monday for their powerful and moving stories. I was at the Pride of Britain awards on Monday night and very many people came forward to me, having heard some of the speeches from this House, particularly the personal testimonies, so I assure her that those stories really did have power in making the argument. We do need to fix what needs fixing, so we will fix maternity services, improve safety and make sure every mother is heard and gets high-quality care.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Let me give the right hon. Lady a simple example. We had an example of green-belt land that was, in fact, a car park where building did not take place, and non-green-belt land that was an open playing field where building did take place. That does not make sense to me. That is why we have our policy.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I welcome Millie to the Gallery—I appreciate that Members on the Opposition Benches cannot see her, but she is looking down at us and smiling with the courage and positivity that I know is everything to her. We absolutely salute that; we are humbled by it. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I really do find it hard to understand how a school trust could make a decision like that in relation to the ramp. Rather than berate those in the trust from the Chamber, I would just implore them on behalf of everybody here and Millie in particular to look again, and hopefully, with the endorsement of the whole House, to reconsider that decision, put in that ramp and match the positivity and the courage that Millie has shown all of us. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that campaign.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman knows that we inherited a situation where local councils were underfunded and millions were wasted on duplication. By reforming the system, which is what we are doing, we will save money and reinvest that in improved public services. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s question, we expect the elections in Surrey to be for the new unitary councils, and we will be setting out the planned timetable very shortly.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out what voters in Durham can see: what people get if they vote Reform is total chaos and broken promises. Councils have a vital role in our communities. It is not just Durham where Reform is doing this; I think four councillors in Kent have just been suspended for bringing the party into disrepute, which is quite something for a party whose Welsh leader accepts Russian bribes to spread Putin’s propaganda.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are putting in the support that we can for hospices, and the money we put aside at the Budget for the NHS is absolutely crucial in relation to that. The NHS was underfunded for 14 long years. We have now put in the funding that the NHS needs to do its work.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the Tories left our flood defences in their worst state on record. We are building them up again, investing over £10 billion to protect homes and businesses. We have delivered over 150 flood schemes in our first year, and I want to see even more rapid progress. My hon. Friend is a superb champion on this issue, and we have provided £300,000 to complete the feasibility study for stronger defences in her constituency.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this serious issue, as he has done on a number of occasions. It affects both his constituents and others across the country. It is simply unacceptable that customers and staff have been so badly let down. I know he will be meeting the relevant Minister, but let me update him now in a couple of respects. Officials are currently reviewing whether the integrated care boards and General Pharmaceutical Council need additional powers to address pharmacy businesses that do not play by the rules—I think that is exactly the point he raises. That could include powers for the council to go after business owners in addition to the pharmacy professionals. More detail will be provided when the hon. Member meets with the Minister, but I thought it helpful to give those two indications.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he is a credit to his community. I know at first hand that he has done so much hard work to help to heal, to rebuild and to look to a brighter future for Southport. I welcome the Phab charity to Parliament; it does fantastic work to help break down barriers. I am proud that Labour is backing our youth clubs with £30 million of grant funding, doubling the number of youth hubs and providing a youth guarantee with earning or learning guaranteed for our young people. Our national youth strategy will be set out in the autumn.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Our small business plan was drawn up with small businesses. I sent the hon. Member a copy online; I hope that she shared that with the 3,000 small businesses in her constituency. That shows what we are doing. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] Well, Conservative Members shout “rubbish”, but this is what small businesses asked us to do. There is £1 billion of additional lending to small businesses and £3 billion extra for small businesses to scale up, and we are dealing with late payments in the biggest reform for 25 years.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
As Britain faced peril in world war two, Winston Churchill took a radical step: he changed the clocks to shift extra daylight into the evenings. As the clocks go back this weekend, will the Prime Minister take a look at the evidence on trialling Churchill time again to cut carbon, reduce bills, improve road safety, boost the hospitality industry and be the Prime Minister who will brighten up all our lives?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will look at the relevant material.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. Added to the list of shocking things the last Government left us is the shocking state of NHS dentistry—broken, like everything else under the last Government. We are rolling out extra urgent care appointments. In Somerset, the integrated care board is expected to deliver over 13,000 extra dental appointments this year; I will give her more details in due course. We are also reforming the dental contract, which will shift focus on to retaining NHS dentists.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Ahmad Al Ibrahim was only 16 years old when he was fatally stabbed in Huddersfield. His life was cruelly taken away in what the police described as an “unprovoked” and “motiveless” attack. Following a visit to Netherhall learning campus in my constituency last week, I know how important this issue is for young people. Will the Prime Minister commit to redoubling efforts to tackle serious violence and knife crime through more visible policing, stronger prevention and investment in youth services?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that devastating case. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the family and friends. Through our Crime and Policing Bill, we are increasing penalties for the illegal sale of knives and giving police new powers to seize knives likely to be used for violence or cause harm. We have also launched a coalition to tackle knife crime, to bring together campaigners and community leaders to tackle the root causes of knife crime and help protect the next generation.