UK-EU Summit

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret that in an earlier exchange the Prime Minister, who is still in his place, may have inadvertently misled the House. The point of contention is the arbitration mechanism for an SPS deal and dynamic alignment. The text says:

“The SPS Agreement should be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism with an independent arbitration panel that ensures the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law”,

which, of course, this is. The Prime Minister said that the Court goes back to the arbitration panel; it does that to convey its binding decision, so he is guilty of sophistry at best, and potentially something worse.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. He will know that it was not a point of order, and not a matter for the Chair, but he has put it on the record.

[The Prime Minister]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not descend into silly language, like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), but this is an important point. He and I get on, and I do not think—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Of course it is European law—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think that right hon. Members have had the opportunity to get their points on the record. We have had in excess of an hour and a half on the statement from the Prime Minister, and I think we should move on to the next business.

UK-EU Summit

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see the fragility of a European defence that is dependent on key items of American hardware, which he correctly identifies that we do not have, and which it will take decades for us to replicate, operate, integrate with our systems and train people on? Does he not see the fragility of our defence if President Trump or another incoming US leader says, “Actually, you’re on your own. We don’t care about the defence of Ukraine”?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. While I am in the Chair, interventions will be shorter than that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, but the best thing for all European nations is not to try to build our own EU defence capability, but to strengthen NATO. There is an argument that we are somehow doing this through the EU so that it can strengthen NATO, but I do not think that is really the ambition of the bureaucrats in Brussels. They have a flag and a Parliament, and they want an army—a Euro army. That is what people periodically talk about, particularly the Germans and the French. They want a Euro army, but that would send the wrong signal to President Trump. Yes, we need to develop those capabilities, but let us develop them through NATO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I think Sir John wanted to intervene.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member has said “you” twice, and now says “Sir John”. It is a very long-established convention that Members do not refer to right hon. and hon. colleagues by name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I do not intend to introduce a time limit, but Members will be aware that there are in the region of 25 people wishing to speak. They might like to consider how long they will spend on their feet, so that as many colleagues as possible can get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I will start with a few words about the context of the debate. Clearly, the accusation—as though it were a negative—is that the campaign for Brexit had a sort of nostalgic, backward-looking spirit, and that those of us who supported it did so in that spirit. There is something in that, because we were talking about restoring British sovereignty; there was a sense that something good had been lost and needed to be brought back. All good revolutions are in a sense backward-looking; the bad revolutions are the progressive ones, while good revolutions restore what was lost. That is what Brexit was about.

Nevertheless, despite that point, which I do concede, fundamentally the case for Brexit was forward-looking. It was about putting this country in the best possible position to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This century demands agility, and the independence that sovereignty can allow. Obviously, there must be co-operation and close working in partnership—Britain has always been an outward-looking country—but nimbleness and agility will be needed in the highly contested new world that we are in. That is what Brexit was about, and on a number of hugely significant occasions since Brexit, we have already seen why our independence was so necessary. We saw it in our covid response, and in the context of Ukraine and our defence policy, and we see it now in our trade. Indeed, we have done since Brexit. We have seen it in the UK’s negotiations with the US, which we can compare with those undertaken by the EU in recent months.

On trade, as I said in an intervention, the challenge is often made that Brexit has harmed our GDP because it brought about a loss in productivity. The reverse is true. Trade with the EU has grown since Brexit, and it is not the case that we have suffered detriment because of that. Trade is growing between the UK and the whole world, including the EU, but it is growing more with non-EU countries, which makes the point about why it was so necessary to reclaim sovereignty over our trade policy. I echo the concerns raised by Conservative colleagues about what is being planned for next week, in terms of dynamic alignment on trade, and I call on the Minister to rule out a back-door alignment arrangement with the EU. We have seen worrying hints of that. I look forward to his response.

The case for Brexit was not primarily about trade. Of course, that is a very important matter, but let us acknowledge, as I think we all do, that really people were voting to take back control of our borders and our laws. Those two vital issues remain contested because this Government never believed in Brexit and do not understand the call of the people for independence and sovereignty in those two key respects.

On borders and immigration, I recognise the case for a youth mobility scheme. In principle, the abstract case for a reciprocal arrangement in which young people can spend a few months or a year working in another country is a good thing. The hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said that it was a nice thing to do. Nevertheless, we see the value of such schemes only when there is a reciprocal arrangement and comparable numbers are coming and going. The same argument applies to the Indian trade deal and its reciprocal arrangement on national insurance. The fact is, many more people will take advantage of the so-called reciprocal arrangements by coming to the UK than will go either to India or to the EU, so we would not have a level playing field. As with free movement, this youth scheme would be another way for many more people to come to this country, undercutting British workers and continuing the stagnation of wages that we have suffered from for so many decades.

On laws and taking back control, I am concerned about the threat of European Court of Justice oversight of the trade arrangements, and potentially of the new veterinary agreement and deals on meat and dairy. I very much hope that the Minister will definitively rule out any extension of ECJ oversight. The fact is—we see this in the Government’s rather mealy-mouthed amendment to the motion—that Labour does not believe in Brexit.

I really honour the Green party for its amendment, because in that we hear the true voice of the pro-European movement. It is almost a parody. It suggests that free movement and rejoining the EU are what the country needs and would be in the national interest. Indeed, it suggests that it would be a way to counter the hard right. Have Green Members seen what is going on in Europe? The extension of the principles of ever closer union, deeper alignment and concentration of power at the European level is stoking the far right across Europe. The fundamental reason why the Conservative party has always been so successful, historically, is that we have spoken for those people who otherwise would be outraged. Reform has been doing well—by the way, I do not associate Reform with the far right—because it speaks for those outraged members of the public, many of whom used to vote for us and for the Labour party, who feel that their Parliament has let them down and politics has left them behind. That has happened across Europe in a much more dangerous way, so if we are serious about countering the danger of the right, we should be absolutely clear about there being no suggestion of any return to the EU.

Let me finish on Reform. Its Members are not here any more, but there we go. They have a rather amusing amendment to the motion, which simply replaces the words “Conservative party” with the words “Reform”. They are piggybacking somewhat on our good work, in a desperate search to be relevant and to catch up with the Conservative party, which is leading the way on this agenda. It is a bit of a problem, and two things occur to me: first, that they cannot even write an amendment of their own and they have to rely on us—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the amendment to which he refers was not even selected, so he should not even be speaking to it.

[Danny Kruger]

I will therefore end just by saying that the amendment tabled by Reform, which I appreciate was not selected, demonstrates that we are on the same page and I deeply regret their opposition to what we are trying to do.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Reform Members are not here, so I will answer that point. They are not on the same page as us because their amendment, which was not a proper one, did not fit on the same page of the Order Paper!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows that he should be addressing the Chair, not facing the back of the Chamber.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that was a lapse on my part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am now instating an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Luke Charters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

Before we leave young people, Opposition Members have said that we are not doing enough for our young people and that a scheme would cause problems. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister said that we must put British young people at the front of the queue for skills and training? The Government have already committed £625 million for training up 60,000 young engineers, chippies and brickies—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. A youth mobility scheme could be sensible and pragmatic and lead to opportunities across the continent.

Let me briefly touch on defence. Last week, I held a Westminster Hall debate about the benefits of a multilateral defence bank. I was pleased to have with me the founder of the Defence, Security and Resilience bank, Rob Murray, who is an inspirational ex-Army officer. I really believe that the UK could anchor a multilateral defence bank at the heart of any future defence pact with Europe. That is the single most transformative lever that the Government could pull to fortify our collective security, acting as an industrial deterrent to Russia. I would welcome my hon. Friend the Minister thinking about that running into next week.

Finally, I will touch on holidays. Over the next few months, hard-working families across the country will travel to airports up and down the UK to go away for some hard-earned summer sun. Since leaving the EU, many of us have landed at a foreign airport to see a huge queue and waited with envy as others pass straight through. I would really welcome it if, as a small gesture to give back to the grafters of this country, we could look at a new arrangement with the EU to ease airport congestion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she needs to be very careful in the language that she chooses to use about the Prime Minister?

[Julia Lopez]

I was deliberately careful to adhere to the rules of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope my intent was clear.

Let me be clear. I do not think that the Prime Minister is a straight dealer. He says what suits him, poses as a man of decency and hopes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I suggest the hon. Lady withdraw her comment, in which she has accused the Prime Minister of not being straight.

[Julia Lopez]

If that is outside the boundaries of what is acceptable, I will withdraw the comment.

My second lesson is that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We have already seen it in this Parliament, from the Chagos islands to the backroom deals with the unions. It is ideological naivety dressed up as serious and sober diplomacy. Labour thinks that signing a deal is the same as securing a good one. It is not, and all that will become clear.

Let us remind ourselves that Brexit was never a rejection of Europe and its people. It was a demand for democratic control over our laws, our borders, our trade and our future.

Ukraine

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think it important that we are able to fully fund the increase in defence spending, and that we were able to explain where the money is coming from straight away. We need certainty and security in our economy. We should not lose sight of the fact that if we lose security in our economy, all our budgets will be affected and we will all be a lot poorer for it, which is why we have taken the approach that we have. Fiscal rules are important and we will stick to them, but we will look, with others, at innovative ways of ensuring that we can raise the necessary money as we go forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

On the principles, the hon. Gentleman is right, and I am so pleased about the jobs in Northern Ireland. As for the bobbing, when I came here 10 years ago, I saw the joint gym session that we go through in these statements, particularly long ones. It is something to behold, but I suppose it keeps us all a bit fitter and a bit healthier, which has to be a good thing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement this afternoon.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

If one observes the comments made by the Chancellor last night, or by the incoming British ambassador in Washington, it is clear that we are ready to engage in a thoughtful, pragmatic way with the new Administration in Washington, and we want to broaden and deepen the trading relationship. I observe that under the first Trump presidency, bilateral trade between the United States and the United Kingdom increased, and we have ambitions to see that continue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his responses.

UK-EU Relations

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the UK’s relationship with the EU. On Monday, in Brussels, the Prime Minister attended an informal retreat with the 27 EU leaders and Presidents von der Leyen and Costa. This marked a clear step forward for this Government’s reset of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He is the first British Prime Minister to join a meeting of European Council members since the UK left the EU. The Prime Minister discussed the common threats that the UK and the EU face, and the value that closer UK-EU co-operation on security and defence could bring. These were points that he also discussed earlier in the day, when he met the Secretary-General of NATO.

With the EU’s 27 leaders, the Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, including cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. He called on Europe to step up and project strength, to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put it in the strongest possible position this year. He set out a strong case for European security and defence: an ambitious UK-EU security partnership; a deeper role for Europe within NATO; the continued importance of small groups such as the joint expeditionary force; together with a continent-wide increase in defence investment. The Prime Minister was clear that the UK would play its full part in European defence and was ready to work together with the EU.

On Tuesday, we announced that the UK will welcome the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission to the UK for the first UK-EU leaders’ summit, which will take place on Monday 19 May. This first summit will provide an opportunity to further strengthen the relationship between the UK and the EU, for the benefit of all our people.

On Tuesday, I attended the UK-EU forum in Brussels to discuss the shared challenges and opportunities facing the UK and the EU, opposite my EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič. I made the case that this Government will be guided by what I am calling “ruthless pragmatism” —working in the UK’s national interest to make people across the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous. The Government’s position is that it is in the British national interest to improve our economic, safety and security relationships with our nearest neighbours. We reject the ideological approach of the past and will take a hard-headed assessment of the British national interest.

As the Leader of the Opposition recently said:

“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU.”

She said:

“Those mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”

This Government will end that chaotic, dogmatic decision making. We should be guided by the principle of mutual benefit, finding collaborative solutions to our common problems. We should be open-minded to proposals that deliver better outcomes for the British people, within the manifesto on which this Government were elected.

This Government have been clear that we are not hitting rewind. We are not undoing Brexit and we are not rejoining the single market or the customs union, but we are looking to make Brexit work in a ruthlessly pragmatic way. That is the spirit that we are taking into the discussions with the EU—not a zero-sum game, but a win-win for both sides, with people across the UK and the EU benefiting. Yesterday I met my EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič, and discussed how we can best work together to enhance co-operation in areas of mutual benefit. We are committed to staying in regular contact as we progress this work.

This Government were elected on a mandate to increase national security through strong borders, to increase people’s safety and to increase prosperity through growth. Our European friends have mutual interest in those priorities. It is those priorities that form the three pillars of the reset in our relationship: security, safety and prosperity. And I am pleased to say that on all three of those issues we are making progress. And work is happening right across Government, from the Prime Minister to the Chancellor at the Eurogroup and the Foreign Secretary at the Foreign Affairs Council.

There have been nearly 70 direct engagements between UK Ministers and their EU counterparts since we came into government, and we look forward to many more, including at the upcoming UK-EU summit. Some people make the false argument that we need to choose either America or Europe, but for this Government the UK’s national interest is paramount and demands that we work with both.

The Prime Minister made the point on Monday evening that the world today is very different from that in 2016, and even in 2024. In this time of change, this Government are stepping up to build alliances in a bid to make people safer and more prosperous. That is the core of our national interest, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his contribution. Of course NATO remains the cornerstone of our security; that has been a cross-party position for decades. He asks about plans and red lines. I refer him to our manifesto, which was put to the people last year, that contains those clear red lines of no return to freedom of movement, the single market or the customs union. He can see in that examples of what the Government are seeking to negotiate.

The hon. Gentleman talks about negotiating international agreements. There are many people from whom I would take advice about international agreements, but I hope the House will forgive me if the Conservatives—the party that managed to send hundreds of millions of pounds to Rwanda and all they got in return was sending some volunteers and most of their Home Secretaries there—are not at the front of the queue for giving advice on how to negotiate international agreements.

I give some credit to the Leader of the Opposition, who strikes a markedly different tone on this issue from that struck by the hon. Gentleman today. She admits freely that the last Government left without a plan for growth, and that, frankly, they ended up making it up as they went along. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not begin his remarks by repeating that apology. Perhaps he has a different view than the one taken by his leader.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but he was part of a Government who negotiated a role for the European Court of Justice in the Windsor framework. He talks about standards. This Government are committed to the highest standards, whether that is on product safety, employment rights or consumer rights. We believe in a race to the top on standards, not the race to the bottom that would be the dream of the Conservatives.

As the Government move forward, our test is the national interest. It is about making Britain safer, more secure and more prosperous. There is another test for the Leader of the Opposition, however. I see that she has put out a social media video about tests, which is worth a couple of minutes for mild entertainment if nothing else. The test for her is whether she will face down the ideologues in her party. Is she going to show some political courage and back the national interest, or is she just going to back down in the face of the ideologues in her party? On the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, I am not optimistic.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend, but the reality is that he has inherited a deal with the European Union that has knocked about 4% to 5% off our economic output each year. Certainly, the Business and Trade Committee heard in Brussels last week a clear message from the business community that we need to be as specific and as ambitious as we can be ahead of the reset summit with the President of the European Commission. What plans does the Paymaster General have to bring together the British business community and, indeed, the trade union community so that the Prime Minister can go into his summit with President von der Leyen clear-minded about just how ambitious our wealth creators want him to be?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Chair of the Select Committee is entirely right about the involvement of civil society, trade unions and businesses. I am sure that he will have seen the comments of the managing director of food at Marks & Spencer only today, who said:

“We wholeheartedly support the Government’s plan to negotiate a Veterinary Agreement; the benefits would be significant, there is no discernible downside, and we will offer whatever help we can to aid the negotiations.”

There was a time when the Conservative party was on the side of business—clearly no more.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome much of the statement’s content—that the Government are serious in their commitment to resetting our broken relationship with the European Union—but what the Liberal Democrats want is action. The European Union is our closest neighbour and largest trading partner. I sense that the Minister knows that we have to get on with repairing the trading relationship which was so badly damaged under the former Conservative Government, so please let us get on and do it. The botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for our country, especially for small businesses, which have been held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. The Minister talks of pragmatic negotiation. Surely what is pragmatic is to drop the Government’s red lines and agree a new UK-EU customs union. It would be the single biggest step that the Government could take to unlock growth, and I cannot think of anything more pragmatic. Liberal Democrats will continue to call on the Government to do the right thing.

We are also disappointed by the Home Secretary’s comments at the weekend on ruling out a youth mobility scheme. Does that represent the Government’s stance? A youth mobility deal would be good for our economy, especially our tourism and hospitality sectors, while providing young British people with the opportunity to work and study abroad. It would be a win-win. Not only that, it is what the British public want. New polling shows that two thirds of the UK population are in favour of such a scheme. Does the Minister not agree that introducing a youth mobility scheme is exactly the kind of pragmatic negotiation that the Government should be prioritising?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and if we look back over recent decades, there have been many people in this House who have had the benefit of studying abroad. As my hon. Friend has also pointed to, though, the red lines upon which this Government were elected are fundamental.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Paymaster General for that statement.

Storm Éowyn

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of his statement and for his thoughtful presentation of it. As he said, Storm Éowyn may well have been the strongest storm to hit the United Kingdom in 10 years. Sadly, it is a sign of what is likely to come. I am praying for those who are grieving those who have died, and I pay tribute, alongside everyone else in every corner of this House, to all who worked throughout the weekend to support others, often at great cost and even risk to themselves.

Back home, communities such as Patterdale, Flookburgh, Cark, Shap, Tebay, Crosby Ravensworth, Witherslack and Bouth saw many homes, businesses and community centres lose power. Like others, I am incredibly grateful to the engineers at Electricity North West and the wider community groups who have worked tirelessly to reconnect residents and support those without power. I want to mention the Commodore Inn at Grange over Sands, the Kings Arms at Stainton, the Watermill at Ings and the Kings Head at Ravenstonedale, which provided shelter, food and drink to residents hit by the power cuts.

Storms are becoming more commonplace and severe, and the damage that they leave behind all the more troubling and increasing. Four days on, tens of thousands of homes across the British Isles are still without power, and transport networks remain badly hit. The Government’s failure at the recent Budget to guarantee funding for flood defences beyond this coming financial year is a cause of great anxiety for communities such as mine, who are often the first to be hit by extreme weather events. It also strikes me as extraordinarily short-sighted. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster demand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts this right, and quickly?

Farmers are our crucial ally in the fight to build more storm-resilient communities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster get the Treasury to ringfence funding, in addition to the environmental land management budget, to support farmers to protect our villages, towns and cities through natural flood management? Farmers are also major victims of these storms, with crops and livestock tragically lost and equipment destroyed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a two-minute limit.

[Tim Farron]

Have I gone over it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

By some 10%. Perhaps he will make this a very short final sentence.

[Tim Farron]

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ensure that resilience funding goes to the farmers who need it? Finally, will he meet the electricity companies to consider how they can improve the resilience of power lines?

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the next phase of the Government’s programme.

In July we set out our legislative programme, in October we set out our financial plan, and today we are setting out our plan for change. When we were elected, we said that we would have five long-term missions for the country: to grow the economy, to build an NHS fit for the future, to break down the barriers to opportunity, to take back our streets, and to make the UK a clean energy superpower. These missions mark an important and fundamental break from the record of chaos that we saw under the previous Administration—the constant changes in policy that prevented the then Government from facing up to long-term problems, held people back and, worst of all, helped to spread the belief that politics and government could no longer deliver for people. In fact, by the end they had given up even trying.

We will never submit to the fatalism that says government cannot deliver change for people. We do not believe that living standards have to stagnate as they did in the last Parliament. We do not accept the lowest levels of satisfaction with the NHS ever recorded, which is what we inherited when we came to power. We do not believe that a tawdry surrender to Tory Back Benchers should be allowed to cut off the dream of home ownership for the next generation. We will not sit back and accept a situation in which young children are falling behind their peers even before they start school, damaging their opportunities for the rest of their lives.

A break with all that is more than a political choice. It is a national necessity, so today we turn the page on that record. We reject the hopelessness that it fostered, and we have set out milestones for each of our missions and the foundations that underpin them. We have already stabilised the public finances. We have announced £22 billion more for the NHS, and we are increasing the schools budget by more than £2 billion. We have rejected the plans that we inherited from the Conservatives to cut back on capital investment and on the country’s future; instead, we want to build the schools, build the hospitals, build the houses and build the transport infrastructure that the country needs—investments that the Conservatives now say they support, although they reject every means of raising the revenue to pay for them. That proves only one thing: they have given up any pretence of being the party of sound money, and given up on being a serious political party at all.

Our plan for change sets out key milestones for the country. The first is to raise living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, so that working people have more money in their pockets no matter where in the country they live. The second is to build 1.5 million homes and to fast-track planning decisions on at least 150 major infrastructure projects; that is more than in the last 14 years combined. The third is to tackle the hospital backlogs by meeting the NHS standard of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks for elective treatment in England. The fourth is to provide a named police officer for every neighbourhood, and 13,000 additional officers, police community support officers and special constables in neighbourhood teams in England and Wales. The fifth is to secure home-grown energy while also protecting bill payers: we want to be on track for clean power by 2030. The sixth is to give children the best start in life by ensuring that a record percentage of five-year-olds in England are ready to learn when they start school.

Underpinning those milestones are the strong foundations that the country needs. Economic stability is the foundation for growth, following a Budget that restored stability to the public finances and put in place investment to move the country forward. We will reduce net migration from the record high level that we inherited from the previous Government, clear the asylum backlog and increase returns of people who do not have the right to be here —work that has already begun. We will also fulfil the Government’s first duty of protecting our people through strong national security. Those are the milestones in our “Plan for Change”. None of them is easy, but worthwhile change seldom is. To deliver them will require relentless focus and facing up to the trade-offs involved. 

Governing is not just about what we want to do, but about how we want to do it, so we have to reform the state itself to deliver our goals. That is why we want value for money, and are cracking down on fraud and waste through the new covid corruption commissioner. That is why we will raise £6 billion by going after tax avoiders—unlike the Conservative party, we are putting in the money to make it happen. That is why the Chancellor demanded efficiency and productivity savings of 2% from each Government Department next year. That is why we want to get more people off welfare and into work. That is why we will tackle the delays and blocks in our planning system to make it faster to get things built. 

The old debate was just about Government budgets. The new debate has to be about how those budgets are used, and about how people can be equipped with the right technology and the right systems to deliver, so we will ask the following questions each time. Is power being devolved enough? Is technology being used enough? Are we learning enough from those on the frontline? We will have more to say about reform of the state soon. 

I know there may be scepticism from those who first accused us of being far too cautious and now accuse us of being far too ambitious, but stop and think about what would happen if we did not set such goals. Politics needs a change when people have lost faith in its capacity to deliver, and the Government system itself needs a change to focus on the goals that we have set.

If we had just carried on in the same old pattern, we would have too many children who are not ready to start school, with opportunity cut off within the first few years of their lives. We would carry on with huge NHS waiting lists, which hurt both our people and our economy. We would have more and more young people cut off from having a home of their own and asking what all their effort and hard work will ever lead to. We would continue with too many of our town centres being no-go zones for people after dark. We would still be at the mercy of dictators when it comes to energy prices. Perhaps most of all, we would have an economy like the one the Conservatives ran, in which living standards continue to stagnate, just as they did in the last Parliament. If we did that, the loss of faith would simply carry on. 

It is not a matter of whether we should do this. We have to do this to stop the country falling behind, and to meet the challenges that we face. If we meet these goals, we will have a country where living standards are rising, more children are ready for school, fewer people are waiting in pain for NHS treatment, more people have the chance to have a home of their home, and our streets are safer because we have the community police we need. That is change worth having and change worth fighting for, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When we came into office in 1997, we were also faced with an NHS that was in severe difficulty. Let me be clear with the House: meeting that target is extremely challenging, but we believe that by setting it and driving the system towards it, we can make real progress towards reducing waiting lists. What a contrast in terms of what the public felt. When we left office in 2010, the public satisfaction rates with the NHS were the highest ever recorded. When we came back into office in July, those satisfaction levels were the lowest ever recorded. That is what we are trying to turn around through the plan we have published today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement. This new Government have followed the disaster of the previous Conservative Administration. The Conservatives broke the NHS, they crashed the economy with the disastrous mini-Budget and they managed the staggering feat of delivering five Prime Ministers in six years. It should not exactly be a hard act to follow—and yet, too many people feel like this new Government are still not listening to them.

When my colleagues and I speak to our constituents, they simply cannot comprehend decisions such as the increase in national insurance, which will hurt jobs just as we need to get the economy going; the tax on family farms; or the utterly misguided removal of the winter fuel payment. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, therefore, if I approach today’s announcement with a degree of scepticism. New targets are all well and good, but people have heard lots of similar pledges and targets before. As they know all too well, without a proper plan for delivery, they fail. I hope the Government recognise that pursuing the targets at the expense of all the other things left broken by the Conservatives will not cut it. The British public will not be taken for fools.

On that point, I want to focus on the NHS. Yes, bringing down waiting lists for treatment is a crucial part of the picture, but doing so at the cost of neglecting A&E waits or the ability to see a GP is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. We know that to fix the crisis in the NHS we must also fix the crisis in our care system. Indeed, it is on fixing health and care and delivering on the issues that people care about most that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will continue to hold the Government to account. When will we hear more detail about how the plan is to be delivered, and particularly, about spending allocations for the NHS to fix our hospitals and reduce those waiting lists?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am the last Member to be called, but I will try not to take too long. I welcome the scale of the ambition in the Secretary of State’s statement, but I challenge what he said about there being only one millstone in the UK. My residents in Edinburgh South West increasingly feel held back by our incoherent Scottish Government. Yesterday was a fine example of that. In the Scottish Parliament, the SNP Government set their Budget—one largely funded by the hard work of Scottish Labour MPs in this place, who secured the biggest ever settlement for Scotland. Meanwhile, SNP MPs in this place voted against our money-raising measures. They want to eat their cake and have it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Supplementary questions should be short and not a speech. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to come to the conclusion of his question.

[Dr Arthur]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always good to be guided by you. The Secretary of State set out how living standards will increase right across the UK, and Scotland is part of that. How will he work with the Scottish Government and the incoherent SNP Government to do that?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

If there is nobody else from the Government Benches, I call—

[Richard Baker]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

—Richard Baker.

[Richard Baker]

It has been a long afternoon, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

May I say how much I enjoyed, as I always do, the witty and skilful speech of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart)? He has perhaps fired an early starting gun on his own campaign for election to an elected second Chamber, given that the tap on shoulder will not come for him—although his party will have to do somewhat better if he is to stand a good chance, given that he is here on his own. He spoke about donations for peerages. We can only wonder what the SNP would do with a £1 million donation, but perhaps Police Scotland know by now, given their investigations into such matters.

We have also spoken about the delivery of constitutional reform. The point that I made to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire was that Labour has been delivering on constitutional reform. I served in Holyrood for three terms: for all the talk of the Scottish National party about reform, that Chamber is in great need of constitutional reform, but nothing has happened at all on that, while in this place, we are bringing forward a significant and important piece of constitutional reform within our first five months in government.

I absolutely agree that we want a faster pace of constitutional reform in this Parliament, but let us be clear about the proposal before us. In 1997, we set out—as an initial self-contained reform that was not dependent on further reform—that the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords would be ended by statute. That is what we are here to deliver this evening. Of course, it is long overdue, as the Minister said, and that is why we have introduced the legislation so early in this Government. It is also important that this reform is a stand-alone one, so we can progress it with the utmost urgency. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is absolutely right that by taking this Bill forward as a stand-alone reform, we give it the best chance of progressing quickly, which is what we need it to do.

Black History Month

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the importance of that changing narrative, and the importance of the organisations in our communities that change it? In mine we have People Dem Collective, Everyday Racism and Margate Black Pride, which are putting the stories of black people in our constituencies on the map. They tell me that in the modern curriculum review, we need to make sure that black history is not just about black people; it is everyone’s history, and it should be part of the curriculum.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind the hon. Lady that interventions need to be short. She will have an opportunity to make a speech in due course.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention about the important and necessary allyship of those organisations. It is of fundamental importance that we empower them and help them to lift others up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme made clear earlier.

The stories of ethnic minority communities are not footnotes; they are integral chapters in our national history. From Claudia Jones, pioneer of the West Indian Gazette and the Notting Hill carnival, to Paul Stephenson and Roy Hackett, who led the Bristol bus boycott in 1963, to Laurie Cunningham, the first black capped England football player from our very own Leyton Orient, British history is enriched by the lives and contributions of people of colour. To overlook these contributions is to erase a vital part of our collective history. As the author Zadie Smith has said, when you erase people’s history, you erase their humanity. Recognising black British history is essential for building a truly inclusive society. It is in this spirit of inclusivity that I will carry on.

Black History Month is an opportunity to recognise the diversity and interconnectedness of the people and cultures that shaped modern Britain. One of the most important aspects of that is remembering the long and proud tradition of black and Asian servicemen and women who have defended this nation with valour and distinction. As we know, soldiers from Africa, the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent made significant contributions to Britain’s efforts in both world wars. I want to remember in particular the contributions of our aviators, such as squadron leader Mohinder Singh Pujji, an Indian RAF pilot who flew Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of Britain. I would also like to share the stories of the Jamaican squadrons—the pilots of the Caribbean, as we like to remember them. There were so many brave men and women like Mohinder and the pilots of the Caribbean who played a vital role in securing our freedom. Their contributions were crucial, but are often overlooked. We will remember them next month on Remembrance Sunday.

In recent years, many of our reflections on Black History Month have centred on the story of the Windrush generation, but their intrinsic link with the history of the Royal Air Force is not always recognised. Many of those who arrived on the Empire Windrush and subsequent ships were not strangers to Britain in any sense. In fact, they were former RAF service personnel returning to our country—the country they had defended just a few years before. I wish to share with the House some of the stories of these remarkable individuals, so that they are captured in our history.

John Henry Smythe MBE, known as Johnny, was originally from Sierra Leone. He volunteered for the Royal Air Force in 1939 and served as a navigator in 623 or Jamaica Squadron. Shot down over Germany in 1943, he spent 18 months in a Nazi prisoner of war camp before being liberated in 1945. After the war, Smythe worked at the Colonial Office, caring for demobilised Caribbean and African airmen. In a twist of fate, he was the senior officer on the Empire Windrush in 1948 when it was being used to take former personnel back to the Caribbean. Recognising the lack of job opportunities there, Smythe recommended that the men be allowed to return to the UK. That decision marked the beginning of the Windrush generation. He later became a barrister, a Queen’s counsel and Sierra Leone’s Attorney General. He died in 1992 at the age of 82.

Sam King MBE was originally from Jamaica. He had served in the RAF during world war two. Joining in 1944, after responding to an advertisement in Jamaica’s Daily Gleaner newspaper, King arrived in Greenock, Scotland in November 1944, experiencing a shocking temperature drop from 23ºC in Jamaica to 4ºC on his arrival. After three months of training at RAF Hunmanby Moor in Filey, Yorkshire, he was posted to RAF Hawkinge, near Folkestone in Kent, where he served as an aircraft engineer. King was later promoted and received further training at RAF Locking in Somerset. He had several more postings, finishing his wartime service at Dishforth, in Ripon, Yorkshire. After returning to the UK in 1948, Sam re-enlisted in the RAF, serving until 1953. Later in life, Sam became a driving force in the British Caribbean community. He co-founded the Windrush Foundation and became the first black mayor of Southwark in 1983. Sam died in 2016 at the wonderful age of 90. Having checked through Hansard, I can see that his contributions have rightly been recognised before by several parliamentarians, both in this place and the other, who had the honour of being his best friends.

Prince Albert Jacob, known as Jake, was born in Trinidad in 1925 and volunteered for the Royal Air Force at 17 years of age in 1943. During world war two, Jake repaired planes in America and in England, serving at bases in Kirkham, Burtonwood and Carlisle. In 1948 he married his wife Mary, an English woman, despite facing racial prejudice from her family. Jake settled in the Black Country and later in Knowle, building a life in post-war Britain. Although promised medals for his wartime service, Jake only received his war medal, defence medal and veterans badge in February 2023, at the age of 97. That is a stark reminder of the often overlooked contributions of servicemen of colour. I had the pleasure of meeting Jake at the RAF’s 75th anniversary celebrations for Windrush at Edgbaston in June 2003. There is rightly a growing recognition of the Windrush generation’s significance in British history, but there is more we can do to permanently fuse that into our common understanding of who we are and where we come from.

I thank Micah, the RAF’s ethnic minority network and the air historical branch for sharing and preserving these stories. I also thank the RAF for lifting the black bar, allowing these people to serve our country. These men and women made a conscious choice to return to Britain. They saw opportunities to use their skills to forge a better life for themselves and their families. Their decision was an act of agency—a deliberate choice to improve their circumstances while contributing to Britain’s post-war recovery.

That story of service, migration and contribution resonates deeply with many of us. That was the conscious decision that my mother made: to come to this country and build a life for her family. I stand here 47 years later as a proud Zambian and Londoner with a decorated RAF career, representing my constituency as its first black MP. I aim to stand as a shining example of agency and opportunity for all the young people in Leyton and Wanstead, contributing to our shared history alongside those from the Windrush generation who had RAF ties.

I want to finish by reflecting on what it means to have people who reflect so many strands of our national story here in this place. From the pioneering Indian parliamentarian Dadabhai Naoroji, who was elected as the Liberal MP for Finsbury Central in 1892, to the groundbreaking election of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) as our first black woman MP in 1987, we have seen significant progress. In 2010 there were 27 ethnic minority MPs; by 2019 that number had risen to 66, 10% of all MPs. As of July 2024, we stand at 90 MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds and, critically, 50 of that number are women. Representation is about ensuring that the diverse voices and experiences of our nation are heard in the Chambers where decisions affecting all our lives are made. As we all celebrate Black History Month, let us recommit to ensuring that the diversity we see in our streets, our workplaces and all our constituencies is reflected in these halls of power.

Recognising this shared history makes it all the more crucial to address the Windrush scandal, which continues to demand redress, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s recognition of that and movement towards doing so. As we know, people with stories like Jake’s, Sam’s and John’s were devastated just a few short years ago due to policies and failure originating from this place. They lost their jobs, their homes, their access to healthcare and, in some cases, their right to remain in the country they had called home. The Windrush compensation scheme was alarmingly slow and complex, and the compensation meagre. The Home Office’s failure under the previous Government to fully implement all the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review further compounds this injustice. As we stand here in 2024, it is clear that the Windrush scandal is not a closed chapter in our history but an ongoing struggle for justice and recognition, and I welcome our renewed commitment to right these wrongs.

As we reflect on the Windrush generation’s contributions and struggles, we have an opportunity to recognise the ongoing value of migration to our country. In communities such as Leyton and Wanstead, and Plumstead and Woolwich, where I grew up, we see the positive impact of immigration every day in our local buses, schools and GP services. From our family-run shops to dedicated new NHS staff and the entrepreneurial people-to-people links we have to fast-growing countries, our openness and interconnection with the world continues to enrich and strengthen our local areas and the nation as a whole.