Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the number of people who have been dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include cases where—

(a) there is formal documentation citing sexuality as the reason for their dismissal; or

(b) there is evidence of sexuality or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must include recommendations of the sort of compensation which may be appropriate, including but not limited to—

(a) the restoration of ranks,

(b) pensions, and

(c) other forms of financial compensation.

(4) The report must include a review of the cases of those service personnel who as a result of their sexuality have criminal convictions for sex offences and/or who are on the Sex Offenders register.

(5) The report must include discharges and forced resignations back to at least 1955.

(6) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.

(7) The Secretary of State may make further reports under subsection (1) from time to time.

(8) In this section, “sexuality or gender identity” includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.”

This new clause requires the government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.

New clause 3—Armed Forces Federation—

‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 333, insert the following new clauses—

“333A Armed Forces Federation

(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—

(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and

(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.

(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.

(3) The Armed Forces Federation shall act through local and central representative bodies.

(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces shall be construed accordingly.

333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or

(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—

(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;

(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;

(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and

(d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.

(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces.””

This new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.

New clause 4—Armed Forces Mental Health Care review—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing a review of the mental health treatment provided to Armed Forces personnel through the—

(a) Defence Medical Services,

(b) Departments of Community Mental Health and the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service, and

(c) Reserves Mental Health Programme.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would require the government to conduct a formal review of the standards of mental health care available for serving personnel.

Amendment 1, page 4, line 27, clause 7, at end insert—

“guidance under subsection (3)

(a) must provide for charges of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape to require specific consent by the Attorney General to be tried in court martial when the offences are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, and

(b) if the Attorney General has not granted such consent, guidance under (3)(a) shall provide that charges as set out in section 4A(a) to be tried in civilian court only.”

This amendment would ensure that the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape - are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried under courts martial.

Amendment 7, page 16, line 1, clause 8, leave out subsection 5

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Ministers in the devolved legislatures before issuing or revising any guidance under section 343AE relating to the duties imposed by sections 343AB(1), 343AC(1), and 343AD(1).

Amendment 8, page 17, line 34, clause 8, leave out “consult” and insert “obtain consent from”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Ministers in the devolved legislatures before widening the scope of the duties in sections 343AA(1), 343AB(1), 343AC(1) and 343AD(1) when exercising this power in devolved contexts.

Amendment 2, page 18, line 28, clause 8, at end insert—

“343AG Section 343AF: report

‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act is passed, and thereafter must make a report at least once in every calendar year.

(2) The report in subsection (1) shall set out how the powers in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) will work in practice.

(3) Any report published under subsection (1) after the initial report made 3 months after this Act is passed must include—

(a) a statement detailing how the powers granted through section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) have been used since the last report was issued,

(b) a review of the relevance of the listed bodies and functions in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in relation to the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report under section 343A of AFA 2006, and

(c) the outcome of a consultation conducted by the Secretary of State with the Armed Forces Covenant Reference Group on the bodies and functions listed in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in regard to their appropriateness and relevance as part of the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces Covenant including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Labour stands firmly behind our armed forces and our brave service personnel who serve our country. It is a privilege to be speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition on this important legislation. From their work across the country on the frontline of the pandemic to operations around the world, Britain’s armed forces deserve our admiration and gratitude. My granddad, who would have been 100 this year, served with the RAF during the second world war. Nearly all of us will have loved ones whose service we look back on with pride, and I am sure that we would all hope they were given the support they needed and deserved during their service and afterwards.

Labour supports our armed forces and the principles behind the Bill. It presents a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to bring about meaningful improvements to the lives of our service personnel and veterans and their families, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all the organisations—local authorities, service charities and voluntary organisations—that have contributed to this legislation.

It is the duty of any and every Government to look after their people, and there are welcome steps in the Bill, which we support—the creation of a legal duty to the principles of the covenant, and the implementation of key elements of the Lyons review—but we believe the Government can and should go further. Our forces communities cannot afford for this Bill to become a missed opportunity, and that is why Labour has put forward our amendments in good faith to strengthen the Bill and offer the support and protection that are needed by many of our service personnel.

Turning first to amendment 1, currently serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape cases that are committed in the UK by service personnel are prosecuted in the service justice system, the SJS, not the civilian courts. Victims and their families often do not get the justice they deserve, and quite often sexual abuse cases are tried as “disgraceful conduct” and other service offences, meaning those who commit the offences are not put on the sex offender register.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Labour has said from the start that this Bill offered a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to make meaningful changes to the day-to-day lives of our forces personnel, veterans and their families. During Armed Forces Week, I had the privilege to bring together veterans of D-day, the Falklands and the Gulf war with Royal Navy and Royal Marine cadets from across Portsmouth. This celebration of service past and present was a powerful reminder of our collective responsibility to keep society’s promises to our nation’s service personnel. That is why Labour worked with service charities, veterans and personnel, and colleagues from across the House, to get the very best for our armed forces from this legislation.

The increased scrutiny the Bill has received means the Government have had many opportunities to listen to the fundamental concerns raised, but Ministers have steadfastly refused to do so at every turn. The Government have let themselves off the hook in delivering for Her Majesty’s forces. The provisions in the Bill do not apply to Government Departments, including, laughably, the Ministry of Defence itself, so while the Government claim the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law the reality is that they have outsourced the delivery of its important promises to others, and without any extra resource with which to do it.

Service charities continue to raise concerns about the Bill’s narrow scope, which risks creating a two-tier covenant and a race to the bottom on standards in service areas left out. In practice, this means that long-standing issues facing forces communities, and frequently raised by service charities, will not be addressed. Employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration are all on the long list of areas we know will not be covered. Labour’s amendments forced Ministers to take responsibility and widen the scope of the Bill. Twelve of the UK’s largest service charities, including the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, Cobseo and SSAFA, all wrote to Ministers last week backing these proposals, but the Government still voted them down.

On service justice, we welcome the creation of an independent Service Police Complaints Commissioner, and we hope to see Ministers get on with implementing this to ensure greater oversight and fairness in service justice cases. However, the Government refuse to improve access to justice for service personnel by trying rape and serious offences in civilian courts when they are committed in the UK. These proposals are backed by the Deepcut families, who have used their powerful and first-hand experiences of poor service justice investigations to call out the double standard of sudden deaths being handled by civilian police while rape and other serious offences are not.

Almost three quarters of sexual offences in the armed forces in 2020 took place in the UK, and between 2015 and 2020 the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%. The latest data available suggest the conviction rate was 59% in the civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. This issue is disproportionately affecting women of junior rank: more than three quarters of the victims were women, and seven in 10 victims held the rank of private. Ministers refuse to recognise the weight of evidence from these figures, the experts and campaigners, and instead have relentlessly backed a fudge that will leave personnel vulnerable. That will be on their watch.

Finally, the Government have rejected the golden opportunity provided by Labour to end the shameful scandal of eye-watering visa fees for non-UK service personnel. Ministers cynically cite the long-awaited and underwhelming plans currently under consultation as proof of progress on this disgraceful injustice, but we know that they will help just one in 10 of those affected. The truth is that Ministers are content with making these decisions, but personnel will pay twice to stay in the country they have fought for.

In summary, this is an Armed Forces Bill that provides absolutely nothing for actively serving personnel. It fails to address long-standing and well-known issues facing service communities. It willingly ignores the recommendations of a judge-led review on the service justice system. It reduces appeal time limits for serving personnel brave enough to make a complaint, and it does nothing to end the shameful scandal at eye-watering visa fees for non-UK veterans. The Tories will talk this up as a manifesto promise fulfilled, but by any measure this Bill does not match the high standards our armed forces display in their service and in what they demand of themselves. Tonight, personnel, veterans and their families will rightly be questioning whether this Government really are on their side.

It is Labour that has been working in the interests of service communities. The Tories have dogmatically opposed these efforts, but we will continue to support this Bill, despite its many faults, as the intentions and principles underpinning it are positive. However, we will do so knowing that this Government have fallen far short of delivering the very best for service personnel. This will not be the end of Labour’s efforts to secure improvements for our armed forces communities. We will continue to champion them, and we will work with others in the other place to ensure that the Government deliver on the covenant and in full for every member of our armed forces, veterans and their families. They deserve nothing else.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will now suspend the House for two minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.

International Aid: Treasury Update

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Programme motion
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The choice that we face today is clear: are we global Britain or little Britain? This is a trap for the unwary. In fact, it goes further than that. This is a deliberate cut in aid, which the Conservative party has been wanting to do for a long time. I share the concern of many Government Members who do not want to be seen as the nasty party. We are the only G7 country to be cutting our aid, so it simply does not have to be done. We do not have to shrug our shoulders and say, “We are in the middle of a pandemic. This is another cost of covid. We just have to get on and do this”. No, this is a deliberate choice about what we do to retain our promises to the world’s poorest people at a time when we are all suffering around the world together. This is not only about how much we are cutting, but how the cuts are being made: not very strategically; very fast for many of the smallest projects which have the best outcomes; and without any impact assessment being done. The figure of 0.7% is not some arbitrary number dreamt up by a Treasury civil servant.

One of the most memorable days of my life was standing on a stage in Edinburgh, introducing Eddie Izzard to a massive crowd of people. Why am I bringing that up now? It is because it was a Make Poverty History rally. People had got up the night before and travelled overnight in coaches from communities across the whole country. They were of all ages and all backgrounds, and had one mission: to make poverty history and see the 0.7% prescribed in law. That happened many years after; there were many years of campaigning that brought the 0.7% into reality. It is not something that we can lose so easily. I share the concerns of many Members that if we lose it today, it will be many years—if ever—until we see the return to 0.7%, which the British public want.

People from across my constituency have written to me saying that they do not agree with the aid cuts. It is a small amount in the whole scale of Government spending—just 1% of our borrowing—and it is very good value for money. It is a false economy and it is wrong to cut the South Sudanese peace project, which has been built up over many years and is based in trust. This cut will result in devastating results in South Sudan. It has been called a “crushing blow” to the people of South Sudan. Today is an opportunity to restore the cross-party agreement on aid, to restore our ambition and our own influential place in the world, to do the right thing and to vote against these cuts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Catherine West—[Interruption.] We do not seem to have any audio, so let us go to Tobias Ellwood and come back to Catherine West.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

May I begin by saying how pleased I am that the Government have finally bowed to pressure and that we in this House are having the vote that we were promised on cutting money to the world’s poorest people? It is absolutely right that we have that vote because every Member of this House must declare his or her position. I fear that, without a meaningful vote, Members on the Government Benches could continue to hide behind crocodile tears or meaningless words of regret, without ever having to display the courage of their convictions and stand up and tell this Government that the decision to take £5 billion away from the world’s poorest people is fundamentally wrong and morally repugnant.

At the end of this debate, we will all have to declare where we stand, and no one can continue in the hope that, by choosing to stay silent, he or she will not be asked to come off the fence. Although this vote has been a long time coming, it does mean that we are all in this House well rehearsed in the arguments. Absolutely no one can pretend that he or she does not know what they are voting for this evening, or that they do not understand the consequences of their actions when they vote. They now know that, if they support the motion, that money is not coming back.

I find it utterly incomprehensible that the Government of one of the richest countries in the world appear hellbent on making the poorest people on this planet even poorer and more susceptible and vulnerable to disease, hunger and the lack of clean water. For them to push this as vigorously as they have, despite every single analysis telling them and us that millions of people will die, simply beggars belief. It is shameful that, if the motion is agreed tonight, it will mark a new low point for a country that pretends or boasts about being a beacon for tolerance, decency and humanity. This is the test of that vote.

As I have said before, this country has a moral obligation to help those in what we now call the developing world, not least because this country is in no small way responsible for the situation in which they now find themselves. The UK—Great Britain—grew rich and powerful on the backs of the world’s poor. We invaded, conquered, divided and plundered, leaving behind an impoverished wasteland. It is about time that this country woke up to its moral responsibility to assist those we abandoned to live with the consequences of British imperialism. We should not be running away from that responsibility. Those on the Government Benches have to accept that that is the consequence of their action tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now go back to Catherine West.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I have listened very carefully to the speeches in this debate, and many of them focused on our manifesto promise on aid spending. That is entirely correct but, as I said in one of my interventions, we also made a commitment not to borrow money for day-to-day spending and to reduce our debt burden. All those commitments have been made more challenging by the global pandemic we have faced. The Treasury’s motion, which I will support, as I hope all my colleagues will, is an attempt to deal with the challenge of the pandemic and deliver on all our manifesto commitments in a way that reflects the reality of what has happened over the past year.

I have also heard many Members talk about the borrowing that we have had to make over the last year. I know the Chancellor and I am very proud of that borrowing, because it has helped us get through an incredibly difficult year, but one-off borrowing for a crisis is not the same as ongoing day-to-day spending. I am surprised by many of my colleagues who talk about the £5 billion a year that it would cost to replace this spending as if £5 billion was not a lot of money.

I can remember many difficult conversations when I was a Minister, and indeed when I was Government Chief Whip, about far smaller sums of money, sometimes involving many of the colleagues I have heard talk about £5 billion as if it were nothing. I am afraid that we are going to have to get used to the fact that there are certain realities in the world—that money we spend has to be paid for, and it either has to be borrowed or financed from taxation.

One of the problems we now have with the borrowing we have had to make over the last year is that we are very vulnerable to increases in inflation or interest rates. I heard someone say we are living in an era of low interest rates. We do not know how long that is going to last, and a 1% rise in inflation and interest rates would cost us twenty-five thousand million pounds, five times the amount we are arguing about today. Those are the realities that not just the Chancellor but all of us in this Parliament, and particularly those of us in the governing party, have to grapple with.

My final point is just to say to my colleagues that I fear that this debate is going to be repeated many times as we move through the comprehensive spending review. We are all going to have to face very difficult challenges. Governing is about choosing. It is about setting priorities for what we think is important. This is important, but so is keeping the fiscal measures on balance. All of them are important, and I am glad that the Chancellor has brought forward the measures that he has today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am sorry that we have not been able to get more speakers in, but we now have to move to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. No, I cannot ask the Government to withdraw the motion and the business statement that has been agreed to, but I do share his disappointment that the document has not been made available before the debate after next. I hope that it will be fed back from those on the Treasury Bench that the Minister should address the issue in her opening remarks in the debate.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have recently been on a four-colleague call with the Care Minister where she confirmed to us that the said impact assessment would not be made available until after the debate. That strikes me as a rather back-to-front approach. I just provide that clarity to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that clarity. It is what we rather suspected, and what I was trying to hint at, in that it was not going to be ready but the Minister would address that in her remarks when she opens the debate.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given what my hon. Friend has said, it is available and it could be made available immediately, but the Government are choosing not to make it available until after the event.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has reinforced his point that if it is available it could be made available before the debate. We understand that it is not going to be, but, as I say, we will pass back the very strong feeling that the Minister should address why that is the case in her opening remarks.

Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the Order of 23 June 2021 (Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No. 2)) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Question agreed to.

Afghanistan

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and I know that his views are echoed in every corner of this House. We owe those people a huge debt for their bravery, their sacrifice and the risks they have run not just to their own lives, but to the lives of their families. That is why the Afghan relocations and assistance policy addresses those risks and I am proud that, already, 1,500 have been allowed to come safely to this country. I thank everybody involved for the speed and efficiency with which they have been handling those cases.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

No, we cannot. That is the self-evident answer to that question. I am fairly confident that conversations will be had by, as it were, the support teams on either side on a highly theoretical and hypothetical question, such as, “Well, in the event that this were to happen…” Indeed, that was why Lascelles wrote his letter to The Times in the first place—to give a bit of necessary transparency and certainty to the whole process, which in truth, because it is rooted in convention, has neither transparency nor certainty.

Ultimately, what we show here is that the insistence on continuing with an unwritten constitution becomes more and more difficult with every year that passes. Ultimately, that is something we will have to recognise. It will be the mother and father of all tasks to get the necessary consensus to codify it, but in an age when all the constitutional changes that we have had in the past few decades are there competing with the sovereignty of this House within Parliament in particular, it is in everybody’s interests that we should find the moment to do that. This is not the moment, for the avoidance of doubt. I think Parliament would need some time to be clear of its current concerns before we could undertake that.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the conduct of the 2017-19 Parliament. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) is no longer in his place, because he outlined all the various actors in these dramas and how some might be seen to have executed their obligations better than others, but it is inevitably the case that where we have a system that relies on checks and balances, every time somebody takes out a check, somewhere else we have to adjust the balance. That is why although I felt exceptionally uneasy about the way former Speaker Bercow made some of his decisions, I thought they were necessary because the Government were getting close to abusing the substantial amounts of power that an unwritten constitution based on convention gave them. That is why instead of relying on nods and winks, and checks and balances, it is better that we should write it all down, as then everyone would know where they stood.

I do not think there is any hyperbole here, and it is overstating the case somewhat to suggest that the political turmoil of the 2017-2019 Parliament was a consequence of the term of Parliament having been fixed in 2017; there were lots of political reasons for that, most of them to do with the internal splits and divisions in the Conservatives, as the minority governing party after 2017. The fact that they had a minority set the political tone of that whole Government. Somebody said earlier that the election was far too late by November 2019. When would have been the right time? Perhaps it was when the Prime Minister became Prime Minister in July of that year, but I do not remember him having any great appetite for having an election at that point.

The truth of the matter is that we eventually had an election in 2019, at probably the worst time of year to be campaigning in Orkney and Shetland—we are never going through that again. That election required the Government of the day to work with the Opposition, with us and with the Scottish nationalists, and that is how it should be. That is effectively how the Fixed-term Parliaments Act did its job, when the Government eventually allowed it to do so. That is why I deeply regret this Government’s decision to repeal it, and why my party will be opposing them in the Lobby this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now have nine more speakers, which means that, allowing for the wind-ups, we need speeches to be just under 10 minutes. No. 11 on the list has withdrawn, so we will go straight to Christine Jardine.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland]

I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman talking about veterans. I will make two points if I may. First, of course, not all veterans are mad, bad or sad. The picture you paint is very negative. The vast majority of veterans in this country live very successful, happy, fulfilling lives. My second point is this. I visited Veterans Aid yesterday in London, which is a very impressive organisation focused very much not on alleviating symptoms, but on outcomes. Do you agree that outcomes is the right way to go?

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I just offer a gentle reminder that we speak through the Chair, rather than directly.

[Dan Carden]

I take the hon. Member’s second point and I would not want to be painting a negative picture. I am speaking on behalf of the people I have met in my constituency who have come through Tom Harrison House and elsewhere, who have suffered a great deal in their lives.

I will finish on some points made by Dame Carol Black in her independent “Review of drugs: phase one report”. She says:

“The number of residential rehabilitation services have reduced significantly, removing a core treatment component for those that need it to support their recovery”,

and:

“Some areas are starting to ‘ration’ treatment, setting higher thresholds for those who can access it and/or just offering a minimum service due to workers having such large caseloads.”

The question for the Government is: if mental health services are failing the general population, what use is a law that gives due regard to service personnel and veterans? Regardless of people’s training or dedication to their duty, mental health disorders, including addiction, do not discriminate, and I simply want the MOD to take greater responsibility for and interest in these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division. On the motion on the conference, November and Christmas Adjournments, the Ayes were 567 and the Noes were three, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the assurances he provided from the Dispatch Box in his opening remarks. I also pay special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for the diligence with which he conducted the Bill Select Committee. I must also pay special tribute to my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). Whenever he recollects and provides details of his experiences, he never fails to move me and, I know, many other Members in this Chamber. Thanks are also clearly due to the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, particularly given the efforts it has put in, and, of course, all the military establishments that have continued with the armed forces parliamentary service during this difficult time of restrictions due to covid. It has been invaluable to me to be a member of the scheme, even with all the constraints that covid imposed.

One of the key messages that I take away from the last 18 months is that our military all do their job with a conviction that I find difficult to equal elsewhere. In fact, calling it a job is probably wrong: it is in fact a way of life. It is not a life of luxury. Indeed, it is not a life with many of the things that most of us take for granted. It is a life that they know might one day put them at risk. I thank all of them and their families and pay tribute to the veterans from my constituency of Dudley North and beyond.

Before I entered Parliament, I chaired an armed forces covenant committee in the Black Country, where I saw at first hand the difficulties faced by our brave personnel and their families—if they had any family—simply because of the nature of their jobs. At that point, the covenant was a voluntary commitment, with inconsistencies across the country. I am therefore delighted that this is being enshrined in law so that the support somebody receives in Dudley will be the same as that given in Portsmouth and, indeed, perhaps in Dover.

While I was chairing the covenant committee, I was never able to find the answer to one simple question: how many people had we helped and were we actually helping? I am a very outcome-focused person, and while I could not doubt the well-meaning and positive intentions of all the partners supporting the covenant—the local council, the local NHS trusts and so many more—I had a hard time quantifying the benefit, even though the covenant is clearly a great step forward. My plea to Ministers is therefore to seek ways to evidence what impact the covenant is having on veterans and their families. That will help partners to improve their offer together and demonstrate the great value in the armed forces covenant.

Covid-19 Update

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]]

On 22 February, the Prime Minister told the House that the PPE contracts

“are there on the record for everybody to see”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 638.]

He also said that

“all the details are on the record”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 634.]

What the Prime Minister told Parliament was not true. A large number of contracts were neither there for everybody to see nor on the record, including a £23 million contract to Bunzl, which was not published until 8 March. The ministerial code states:

“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”

So will the Prime Minister finally apologise to the House and the country for this misleading statement, and ensure that the Government’s procurement practices during the pandemic are in the scope of the covid inquiry?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady means “inadvertently misleading”.

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure she does, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend, who is also a doctor, is completely right: necessity is the mother of invention. We have been driven by the pandemic to great, great feats of scientific genius, producing, as he rightly says, the mRNA vaccines at incredible speed—the AstraZeneca vaccine—and the pandemic has meant that the abilities of this country alone to cope have hugely increased. We are now capable of producing a vaccine through the fill and finish plants. We have the new Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre. We have invested in bioreactors across the country. We are much, much more resilient than we were, but we are also leading across the world in making sure that countries co-ordinate and work together on spotting zoonotic diseases earlier, with the research hubs, and making sure that we co-ordinate data and share data much earlier. We are also making sure that there are not the barriers that have, sadly, sprung up between countries to the sharing of supplies and vaccines, so that we have secure supply chains around the world. So what the UK is doing is not only spending £548 million on COVAX, investing in vaccines around the world—I think that the UK has so far given 40 million vaccine doses to 117 countries—but working on a global response to pandemics. That will be one of the things we will do together at the G7, and it is supported by all the partner countries. So that is what we will be doing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I am suspending the House for three minutes, in order to make necessary arrangements for the next business.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

I beg to move,

That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 1R but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.

Government manuscript amendments (d) and (e).

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 5B.

[Leo Docherty]

I rise to propose Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 1S to 1U. I should once again like to thank Lord Robertson for his constructive contributions to debates on this issue.

It has always been the case that the measures in the Bill will not leave our service personnel at greater risk of investigation by the International Criminal Court. By adopting the amendments, we are happy to offer further reassurance and put that beyond any doubt. I should like to reassure hon. Members that service personnel and veterans will continue to receive the benefits of the additional protections provided by part 1 of the Bill in respect of historical alleged criminal offences under the law of England and Wales. Including war crimes in schedule 1 of the Bill will have little practical impact on the protection that the Bill affords our armed forces personnel. The Government are therefore delivering on our commitment to protect our service personnel and veterans from the threat of legal proceedings in connection with historical overseas operations many years after the events in question.

We have listened, and we believe that these proposed Government amendments in lieu will satisfy the House of Lords in respect of relevant offences, and they demonstrate our continued commitment to strengthening the rule of law and to maintaining our leading role in upholding the rules-based international system.

Lobbying of Government Committee

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that will not have escaped those on the Treasury Bench.

The Government’s inquiry, led by Nigel Boardman, simply will not work. It cannot be seen to be independent, as we have heard, because of the baggage and the back story that he has. Mr Boardman may have carte blanche to ask whatever questions he likes to whomever he likes, but they will have carte blanche not to answer those questions. If that is the case, what is the point? I have no doubt that this scandal will rumble on, and when it does, we must have a mechanism that is robust enough to see it.

Back in 2010, in his now risible speech, Mr Cameron said:

“We can’t go on like this…it’s time we shone the light…on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.”

I wish he had meant it back in 2010. We have to mean it now, and that is why we will be supporting this motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We have many speakers to get in in what is a fairly short debate, so I will impose a four-minute limit to start with—that will be on the clocks in the Chamber and on the screens of those participating virtually—but it will probably have to go down to three minutes fairly quickly.

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, William Wragg.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

As we operate in these covid times, we have an unusual setup, and we watch many Members from afar. Those of us who have dreamed of sitting on these green Benches, and the responsibility and honour that we have to live by and uphold when we sit on them, may wonder whether some of the contributions that have come from our screens today would have been made if the people making them had been in this room. It feels to me like some of the things I have witnessed on those screens while I have been sitting here have been horribly misjudged.

I think there is general agreement that some of the headlines in recent weeks have raised eyebrows, and that there is a level of concern that is shared across the House, but unfortunately, the Opposition and, in particular, the Members who I have been watching on the screens have decided to run with this in a way that is deeply unhelpful and does not help to solve any of the problems that they are highlighting. I therefore fear that this is much more about party political posturing than it is about clearing up the system, and I urge Opposition Front Benchers to consider that, and to think of ways in which we can work together to improve this system.

I listened to the tremendous contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) and for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). I thought that their speeches had an adult tone and gave something that was deeply needed, which was perspective. I commend both of them, but I commend even more my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who I thought answered the Opposition’s point rather succinctly and did the Minister’s job for her by saying that what the Opposition are calling for in this motion already exists. The concerns that have been raised are also being independently investigated, and I think that that is what the public would expect. Again, I come back to my fear that what we are debating today is merely party political posturing, and we should be doing better than that.

I would add a note of caution. We as MPs are exposed to an awful lot of voices within our constituency, and that is right: we meet many charities, many individuals and constituents, many councillors, and yes, many businesses. Those conversations help us to know more, to empathise and to understand, and that is an incredibly important part of our job. There is always a concern, when this sort of series of events comes to the surface, that the first thing we should do is stop doing that: stop meeting people, stop hearing other concerns, and stop hearing the concerns of business. That would be a very unfortunate development.

I have worked with partners across the east midlands on our freeport bid, and one of the strengths of that bid has been the fact that we have had academics, businesses, our local enterprise partnership, and our county councils and MPs working together in unison. That sort of behaviour is what is needed to effect change in areas such as the east midlands, and we should not end up in a situation in which we put up too many barriers. I agree that we should have transparency, but not barriers, and it is important that we continue to have conversations with all groups so that we can make ourselves better informed. That is even more true if we happen to be in a position that does not allow us to meet with our constituents more freely, as Ministers are.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am attempting to get everybody in, but that does mean that after the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to send my tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, on behalf of my constituents in Batley and Spen.

The Duke had a close connection to Yorkshire. His first official visit, deputising for an ailing George VI, was to Hull in 1948. In 1954, just two years into Her Majesty’s reign, the royal couple came to Batley and Spen. The town streets were packed, as locals came out to give them the warm Yorkshire welcome that God’s own county is so famous for. When there was no room left on the pavement, people were hanging out of the windows to steal a glance at the glamorous couple, who took the time to meet people who worked in the industries that gave the region its moniker of “Heavy Woollen District”. Throughout his life, Philip took a keen interest in the people he met; I would love to have been a fly on the wall when the Duke discussed life and textiles with Annie Kenyon, a weaver for 62 years, and Mr Leonard Noble, a wool blender of 52 years.

As the royal family’s dedication to public service grew through the decades, so did Batley and Spen’s love for them. In recent difficult moments for our community, the prince’s values and those of the Queen and the royal household were there again and again, providing leadership and comfort as only they could. Following the murder of my predecessor Jo Cox, Police Constables Craig Nicholls and Jonathan Wright, who arrived on the scene to confront Jo’s killer, received the Queen’s Gallantry Medal for their heroism. Pensioner Bernard Kenny, who was stabbed in the abdomen as he came to Jo’s assistance, received the George Medal; it was accepted by his wife after his sad passing. My friend Sandra Major, Jo’s former caseworker, was awarded an MBE for her services to the communities of Batley and Spen.

In the aftermath of the tragic shooting, the Queen wrote a private letter to Jo’s widower Brendan, which I can only hope brought comfort in the most difficult of times. I have the same hope that an outpouring of respect and tribute such as ours today brings the smallest amount of comfort to the Queen as she mourns her husband.

In December 2020, the Duke’s grandson, Prince William, and the Duchess of Cambridge were in Batley covering the ground that Her Majesty and the Duke did 66 years earlier. That visit was to allow Catherine an opportunity to meet resident Len Gardner, whom she befriended through the Royal Voluntary Service. I am sure the Duke was incredibly proud of his family’s ability to continue his work to adapt and support our nation during these adverse times.

The Duke also fulfilled a role of support to Her Majesty that is rare even today. World leaders still tend to be men, and would have been nearly exclusively so in those earlier decades. The Duke would have stood out as the supporting gentleman to his leading lady. His ability to affect lives is perfectly exemplified by the Duke of Edinburgh Award, and we have heard many examples of the impact that that scheme has had. The awards are a worthy legacy for the Duke, as they have been instilling the principles of volunteering, society, activity and education in young people for decades. While attending his last gold award ceremony in 2017, the Duke met participants from Kirklees. I hope those memories will live with those youngsters for a long time to come.

We come together today to pay tribute to a giant of British society—a man who lived a life of public service and will be fondly remembered with love in Yorkshire. My thoughts are with his family, who will miss him dearly, and all those who loved him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is a special pleasure to be in the Chair to hear a fellow Yorkshirewoman pay her tribute. My constituents in Doncaster Central were deeply saddened by the passing of the Duke of Edinburgh and would want their condolences to be passed on to Her Majesty the Queen in the way that the hon. Lady has done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I rise to offer my condolences to Her Majesty in this Humble Address on behalf of my constituents as much as of myself. Every single one of my constituents—even those who have not yet been born—will enter a world and live a life that His Royal Highness, The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, has shaped. We know that he was reluctant to have the word “legacy” used around him and that he did everything in the service of his country, but he also helped to shape this country in a way that will help it to go forward. The institutions that he supported, which have been described in so many ways today, will have people taking part in them and using them who may not feel that they even have a connection with the royal family. They may be republicans who do not recognise the royal family, but his legacy has allowed them to participate in the areas that are important to them, and he drove those things forward.

As one of the few engineers in this building—as a mechanical engineer with an engineering degree—I can say that the Duke took forward engineering. He helped to form the Royal Academy and made it important. The word “boffins” was used in the past, which may not have helped to achieve the recognition that engineering needed, but he created that important legacy around engineering and put it on the same level as so many other institutions. As we look forward to what the country becomes, we will see the influence of the Duke of Edinburgh in almost every walk of life that people want to go into.

When I arrived in central London today and saw all the flags flying at half mast, it struck me that this is about more than protocol. What it says is that we mourn. We have respect, which is why we are following protocol, but we also mourn. As I entered the city today, that sense of mourning became very evident once again. As the Countess of Wessex commented at the weekend, Her Majesty the Queen has concern for what other people feel. Through this Humble Address, we are saying to Her Majesty that her subjects mourn the loss of her beloved husband. We mourn a man who has shaped this country in ways that few others would have the drive to take forward. I am therefore grateful to have this opportunity to speak not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of my constituents and those who are yet to be born, and to say that this country owes an enormous debt to the Duke of Edinburgh, and in future people will benefit from that but will perhaps not recognise by how much.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will now return to Ian Paisley.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has come to the end of his time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I want to welcome the Budget on behalf of my constituents in Moray and of people across Scotland. There is a lot of good news in what the Chancellor had to say today. First, however, I want to pick up on a few remarks in the speech made by the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). He accused members of this Government of not understanding what it was like to be poor. That is quite an incredible statement from someone who earned his fortune as an investment banker in the City of London before he rediscovered himself as a humble crofter.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that this Budget lacked ambition, but I thought there was ambition weaved throughout the Chancellor’s statement. It has ambition for individuals, families and businesses in the weeks and months ahead, and ambition for our country in the years ahead. If the leader of the SNP at Westminster wanted to see a statement that lacked ambition, he should have looked at Nicola Sturgeon’s statement last week on her partial route map out of lockdown restrictions for Scotland. That was a document and a statement that lacked ambition, hope and clarity and one that we are seeing unravel at the moment as people in Scotland expect more from their Government.

The final point I want to focus on from the right hon. Gentleman’s speech is his comment about how in Scotland there has been an extension to the freeze on business rates for a further year. That is true, but that further freeze, for another 12 months, was made possible and accepted by the SNP Finance Minister only because of an additional £1.1 billion of support from the UK Government to the Scottish Government. Kate Forbes stood up in Holyrood and said that she was able to do this only because of additional support coming from the UK Government to Holyrood, to the Scottish Government, so that is why we have the extension for a full year of business rates in Scotland.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that newspapers were also covered. Of course, the SNP had to be forced to include newspapers in the business rates relief. A vote by the Scottish Conservatives in Holyrood, which the SNP was against to begin with, forced a U-turn. I will leave it to others to speculate why the SNP at this time would not want to support the newspaper industry in Scotland.

Throughout the last year, in dealing with this pandemic, the UK Government have delivered unprecedented support for Scottish families and businesses: the furlough scheme and the self-employed income support, protecting 930,000 Scottish jobs; loans to over 90,000 Scottish businesses and an extension of the reduced rate of VAT for hospitality, leisure and tourism; the £20 a week uplift for universal credit to help those in our society who need it most, which is something I have been calling for since October last year; and £9.7 billion of additional funding for Scottish public services. With this Budget, the Chancellor is continuing those vital lifelines, extending furlough and the self-employed income support until September.

Just as this pandemic has gone on longer than any of us could have imagined back in March last year, so, too, has the broad support delivered by the UK Treasury to the people of Scotland. Yet this is not just a Budget to help the Scottish economy to survive the pandemic. It is also a Budget for our recovery, with investments to support the economy in the north-east in its transition towards green energy, an acceleration of the transformative funding for Scottish growth deals to bolster the local economies in Ayrshire, Argyll and Bute, and Falkirk, and a freeze on the fuel duty to back Scottish drivers, which is crucial to our remote and rural areas. Just look at how that contrasts with the SNP Scottish Government lobbying for an increase in fuel duty. It has gone widely unreported that the SNP is calling for an increase. When we look at the options for fuel duty, how will that go down with voters in rural Scotland in a few weeks’ time? And, of course, as the MP for Moray, representing more Scotch whisky distilleries than any other MP in this place, I warmly welcome the freeze on spirits duty. That is hugely important to the distilleries in my constituency and alcohol producers more widely in Scotland and across the UK.

The Budget shows that the UK Government have a plan to rebuild Scotland’s economy after the immediate health crisis is over, to create jobs and opportunity in every part of our country as we pull together to deliver our recovery. The Chancellor said that the majority of these measures apply across the United Kingdom. We have a further £1.2 billion of spending going to the Scottish Government. We need to see the Scottish Government ensuring that that gets to the services and businesses that need it most. On the stamp duty freeze, we now see that holiday continuing in England until September, but in Scotland it has now ended. We need to see action on that in Scotland as well.

Yet SNP Members cannot welcome this plan—they could not support the Budget because they would rather focus on another divisive independence referendum than our recovery from coronavirus. They say that they want to bring this referendum forward at the earliest opportunity, just when people are renewing their ties with friends and families and businesses are beginning to reopen. Their plan would damage not only our Scottish recovery, but that of the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the last thing we need right now. What families and businesses across Scotland want to hear from the Scottish Government is a full route map for ending restrictions, not a route map for separation. As I said earlier, they are looking for certainty and for hope. This Budget has delivered that by extending the vital lifelines that Scottish families and businesses are relying on. It is now time for the Scottish Government to do the same.

The Chancellor has set out an ambitious programme that will not only secure the survival of many jobs and businesses in Scotland, but provide the basis for our economic recovery in the future. There was just one point that I agreed with the leader of the SNP on. He said that Scotland has a choice of two futures—we do. In the coming Scottish Parliament election, voters will decide whether they want the focus of all the politicians and all the parties within the Scottish Parliament to be on another independence referendum or on rebuilding Scotland from coronavirus. Let us not choose more damaging division. Let us instead rebuild Scotland and the whole of the UK together. Today’s Budget will help us do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now go via video link to Seema Malhotra, after which the time limit will go down to five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As we are having some trouble getting to Simon Fell, I call Colum Eastwood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Almost exactly a year ago on 28 February, Wales recorded its first case of coronavirus. Covid-19 would go on to turn countless lives, livelihoods and communities upside down. In my Ogmore constituency, many families have faced unimaginable loss in unprecedented circumstances. It has not just been the loss of loved ones, often without being able to say goodbye, or of the precious time with friends and family. There has also been a previously unimaginable scale of financial loss, with small businesses destroyed, seemingly overnight, disappearing jobs, reduced hours and some people—the excluded—simply falling through the gaps in support and receiving nothing, even after their income vanished before their eyes. Of course, I welcome the changes that the Chancellor has announced today to support some of the excluded, but there are still far too many people who are missing out on Government support and who have simply been bypassed again by this Conservative Government.

The emotional scarring of the pandemic will be with us for years to come, and we must do all we can to provide the support for mental health and wellbeing that people need. I am very proud that the Welsh Labour Government have already identified the need for this, and have begun to implement this support as they seek to move Wales forward. But we need to recognise that, alongside the emotional burden, there is also an economic burden; and, as so often during this pandemic, the Chancellor’s plans to tackle it are simply not up to the job.

Figures show that 4,415 people in Ogmore are currently furloughed and 2,705 people are claiming unemployment-related benefits. Months ago, I and my Labour party colleagues called on the Chancellor to end the speculation and uncertainty surrounding the continuation of this support and pledge that he would extend the £20 uplift beyond April. I was proud to do the right thing and vote for the £20 a week uplift to universal credit, as I have seen the difference that it has made in people’s lives across my constituency. While Labour was taking action, the UK Government decided to sit on their hands and pretend that no vote was going on. It will come as no surprise that I find it appalling that I have heard Conservative MPs today saying how important the uplift is, when they chose to pretend that there was no vote going on just a few months ago. They are now praising the uplift as if the Chancellor has ridden in on his white steed and rescued those people who receive universal credit.

The Chancellor could have stopped this speculation many months ago. Even this Sunday, he was asked by the press if he would end this cliff-edge approach to people’s incomes, but again he refused to relieve the anxiety that surrounds families’ household budgets. I am pleased that the Chancellor has finally listened and followed Labour’s lead, but I have to ask: why on earth has it taken him this long to make the decision? Has he perhaps been waiting for a new graphic for his social media? Does his Instagram account take some time to change these things? Meanwhile, families across my constituency have been living with this uncertainty, and it simply is not acceptable.

The difference between the Chancellor’s reluctance to extend the support, and the actions of a Welsh Labour Government straining every sinew to support Welsh families, is glaring. From the get-go, Welsh Labour ensured that the full force of our Government was used to support families, businesses and jobs, be that through: the barriers grant, giving up to £2,000 towards the essential costs of starting up a business; the restrictions business fund, giving businesses grants of between £6,000 and £10,000; or releasing £117 million, through rate relief for premises over £500,000, back into the economy. Welsh Labour has targeted everything towards protecting jobs in our communities.

This Budget is about not just tackling the challenges of the present, but laying the foundations for the future. The Welsh Labour Government understand that and have done that in their work every day over the last 10 years of continuous budget cuts. The Minister and the Chancellor have spent the past 10 years cutting, cutting and cutting the essential foundations of the economy; how do they expect now, with very little planning or ideas, to progress and build an economy back for the future? With such limited expectations and hopes for growth, the Budget is hardly the inspiring one that was being briefed daily for weeks before today.

The scale of the challenge we face as we seek to rebuild after this dreadful pandemic is immense. Our Welsh Labour Government recognise that, and have set out the bold and visionary policies we need to move Wales forward. Today’s Budget is sadly lacking in ambition and in the compassion required by the Chancellor and his colleagues. Families in Ogmore and across the UK have made enormous sacrifices in a collective effort to tackle covid-19 and keep each other safe. They need a plan for a recovery that matches the scale of that sacrifice, but they will not find it in today’s Budget.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid that after the next speaker the time limit will go down to three minutes.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

The first thing I want to say, reflecting on the Chancellor’s excellent Budget speech, is that in an emergency—that is what we have faced over the past year—it is right for the state to use its fiscal firepower to support the people of our country and protect jobs and livelihoods. That will be welcomed across the country, but particularly in my constituency. Listening to the Chancellor set out the more than £400 billion-worth of spending that has been put in place to support jobs and livelihoods, we can see the pay-off. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility now thinks that the level of unemployment we will reach at the peak is considerably lower than it was forecasting just last November. That reduction in the level of unemployment and the jobs that have been protected will be welcomed in my constituency and across the United Kingdom.

I also welcome the specific help in the Budget for my constituency. I particularly welcome the £150,000 to help my local authority put in place the capacity to bid for money from the levelling-up fund. As Members of Parliament are integrally involved, I look forward to working with it to put in place an ambitious plan to help improve economic conditions in my constituency. I also welcome the continued reduction in VAT for hospitality and tourism businesses, and the extension of the business rates holiday. I know that that will be incredibly welcome to those businesses in my constituency that are raring to go to get back into business but are not yet enabled to do so.

We have had a big, one-off amount of borrowing to get us through this crisis, so we need to get the public finances back in shape. The Chancellor set out very clearly why that is essential. First, if debt continues to rise, we are very vulnerable to a rise in interest rates. A 1% rise in interest rates, modest by historical standards, would mean our having to find £25 billion a year in debt interest. That would mean making very significant savings elsewhere from important public services. Secondly, we have to get the public finances in good shape to prepare us for the inevitable future crisis. As the Chancellor set out, it was only the difficult decisions that we took on tax and spending from 2010 onwards that allowed him to have the fiscal firepower and borrowing capacity to get us through this crisis. It is right that he wants to leave the public finances in shape, either for himself in the future or for a potential successor, to deal with any crises to come. It is important that that cannot happen immediately, but over time.

I am pleased to see in the independent forecast that we will get the Budget back into balance by 2025-26, by three mechanisms. The first is growing the economy faster, and I welcome the mechanisms that the Chancellor set out today to increase investment, to get businesses firing on all cylinders. However, secondly, it also requires controlling the growth in spending, and I am pleased to see controlled growth in public spending in the numbers. That will mean some difficult decisions in the spending review, and I say to Members on both sides of the House, especially my colleagues, that it will mean making choices, setting priorities and deciding what we think is important. We cannot spend money on absolutely everything we want; as Conservatives, we have to live within our means and make those difficult decisions. I hope that, as those decisions are made by ministerial colleagues and our Treasury colleagues later this year, we can all support them.

Finally, it also means an increase in taxes, which is uncomfortable for someone like me who wants to see lower taxes. I do not think we are undertaxed, because the tax rises in this Budget will leave us with the highest tax burden in my lifetime. However, I hope that they will be temporary and that, once we have got the public finances back into shape, the Chancellor—as he says, he is a low-tax Conservative—will be able to look to continue increasing public spending in line with the growth of the economy, but also to reduce taxes so that people can keep more of their hard-earned income, which is central to being a Conservative.

This is a very well-judged Budget that gets the public finances back into shape, deals with the crisis—the emergency —we have faced, prepares us for growth in the years to come and leaves us in better shape than the Chancellor found the Treasury. I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I understand that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) is having some technical problems, so we will go to David Mundell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My right hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point. One of the points that I want to make in my short contribution is that we have to accept that the high street and small businesses have moved on. The truth is that we have a very unequal tax system. Giants such as Amazon are paying an infinitely small proportion of their profits and turnover in business rates, and are driving small businesses and shops out of the high street. I personally think that there is something to be said for abolishing business rates all together. How would we pay for that? We could actually pay for it through a 3% increase on VAT on all businesses. That, of course, would hit the very large businesses such as Amazon, which pay derisory levels of tax, very hard indeed. My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point.

May I repeat what I say in every Budget? Perhaps I am a bit of a broken record on this, but I do believe in transparency, and I believe that ultimately we should try to reform our whole tax system. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has counted 1,651 tax changes since May 2010, including: 58 changes to air passenger duty; 130 changes to national insurance; 68 changes to stamp duty; 256 changes to VAT; 53 changes to tobacco duty; and 258 changes to vehicle excise duty. Our tax code is 17,000 pages long—or it was in 2015; it is even longer now. We should compare that with the tax code of an enterprise economy such as Hong Kong, which is only 350 pages long.

As things get easier next year, my plea to the Chancellor is to make our taxes clear, simple and fair. Tax complexity creates a structural bias in favour of the very rich and the big corporations, and that is not fair. Global giants can hire entire departments of tax advisers. I therefore agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings: let us look after middle-class people, who pay PAYE and bear the brunt of all tax increases, and let us direct tax increases at those who can pay, namely the digital giants.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the next speaker, I should explain that we are trying to get everybody into the debate. When there are interventions, if the speaker sticks to the time limit, that is fine—there is nothing against interventions—but the intervention on the right hon. Gentleman has effectively prevented a colleague from getting in. I am just pointing out that we are that tight on time.