Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

George Freeman Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

No, I am going to carry on. I appreciate Members’ kind offers to intervene again and again; I look forward to all their speeches.

The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill will give us the authority to bring British Steel into public ownership, not as an ideological exercise but as a practical means of safeguarding the national interest. It will allow us to retain the Scunthorpe plant as a critical piece of our national infrastructure that is essential to British economic resilience. Britain has long been a proud steelmaking nation. Whatever I have to do to make it so, Britain will retain its capacity and capability to manufacture steel. That is my commitment to Members in this House and to the remaining steel communities of our country. The strength of that commitment can be measured in our determination to boost domestic steel production to ensure that 50% of the steel used here is made here.

Britain cannot make its way in the world as a services-only economy. We have to make our way—earn our way—to greater prosperity, equality, security and opportunity. We cannot do that by economic isolationism, neoliberalism, greater protectionism or a command economy. We cannot regulate our way to prosperity. We can achieve it only through practical and pragmatic policies that support British businesses to be profitable, to scale up, to create jobs and to grow. We have to end the outdated free-market ideologies, failed economic theories and siren voices that all but destroyed Britain’s manufacturing base and drove the British public towards Brexit. Britain’s future prosperity can be built only by business success. There is no other way, no shortcut, no easy option and no magic bullet—no matter how attractive and simplistic slogans and superficial soundbites may appear to some.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is making a wonderful speech about the 1980s. While I agree with many of his points, the truth is that the country today has come a long way in all sorts of sectors, and I am proud to have done my bit to help that. On regulation, the Secretary of State agrees that leadership on regulating new industries, and having sandboxes and testbeds, is a great UK strength. He also wants us to get closer to the European market; is he worried that if we do, we may end up losing our competitive advantage in a number of areas where we could genuinely attract investment into new industries, such as agri-tech and gene editing?

[Peter Kyle]

To clarify, I am talking about how we recover from the scars of the 1980s, how we learn the lessons, and how we ensure that we never repeat mistakes that cause scars that endure for generations. To answer the hon. Gentleman directly, we will align with the European market only where that is in the national interest.

We cannot turn back the clock to build future success. The partnerships that this Government have built with businesses, local government and trade unions are delivering resilient growth and helping to build a stronger economy. They are building a fairer country, in which wages are up and public borrowing is down. There have been six interest rates cuts and 500,000 children are being lifted out of poverty. The FTSE 100 has reached historic highs, and the UK is raising more venture capital funding this year than France, Germany and the Netherlands combined.

This Government faced enormous challenges on taking office, and the conflict in the Gulf presents us with even greater challenges. Despite that, we are making progress. It will take time for the benefits of progress to be sufficiently seen and properly felt. The recent election results show that. The only sure route to proving the benefits of change is growing the economy, and the only certain way to grow the economy is through British business success. Our task is to create the right conditions for Britain’s businesses to invest, succeed, and win in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. We have made a start, and we will see this through to the finish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

A King’s Speech allows a Government to provide a reset—a signal to the general populace that they want to do something different and are going to build on the last Session. The Prime Minister said that the purpose of the Bills contained in this King’s Speech was to strengthen our economic security. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State said that it was about building national resilience.

I have listened for nearly four hours to Members on the Government Benches tell this Chamber and the country about all the positives contained in the Bills that will be brought forward within the next Session. I have looked at how the Bills proposed by this Government will affect the people of South Antrim—the businesses, employers and employees—and the people of Northern Ireland.

Reading through the King’s Speech, there is a section that covers the territorial extent and application of the Bills. When I listen to what Government MPs say is good about these Bills, they say that this extent will cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but the reality is that it will not—it does not—because so much will depend on the European partnership Bill. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has already explained some of those challenges.

I have listened to discussion of the regulation for growth Bill. So many of those regulations in Northern Ireland are still countermanded and managed by European Union regulations. I listened to how sandbox powers will be brought forward, and how they will lessen legal powers and release from bureaucracy people who want to create employment. The Secretary of State says that the powers will increase skills in Northern Ireland, but they will not initially apply in Northern Ireland—in fact, they may never apply there because of the European partnership Bill.

At this minute in time in the EU, the Commission will be looking at who it is going to be negotiating with. Is it going to be negotiating with the current Prime Minister or, in a few months’ time, will it be negotiating with a British Prime Minister who is probably more pro-EU than some on the European Commission themselves? Why would the Commission move now on the regulations that the European partnership Bill would bring about?

Let us look at the implications for energy independence and strengthening our energy security. I was at a recent evidence session of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, where John French, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, made it clear that if Northern Ireland was fully integrated with the GB energy market, we would see a 20% reduction in our electricity bills.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member makes an important point about regulation in Northern Ireland. When in government, I championed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which gives this country the ability to grow disease-resistant and drought-resistant crops—the potato that typically requires 14 applications of high-carbon toxic fungicide can, with technology developed in Norwich, be grown without. Does the hon. Member agree that the Act is a big opportunity for Northern Ireland? It could be growing those potatoes without the fungicide, with huge environmental benefits, but under the European partnership Bill, it will be denied that opportunity.

[Robin Swann]

I agree with the hon. Member. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned earlier that every Northern Ireland politician who is worth their salt was at the Balmoral show last week, along with members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The continual message was that agriculture in Northern Ireland is being strangled by some of the regulations coming from the European Union, preventing us from bringing forward a truly world-leading agricultural industry.

On energy, the cost of fuel is impacting heavily on Northern Ireland, and that has a knock-on impact on our steel industry. There is a fantastic manufacturing base across Northern Ireland, but our businesses now face a dual burden. The Windsor framework necessitates the application of the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism on at-risk goods from Great Britain, which effectively creates a carbon border in the Irish sea that could add up to £200 million in annual trade costs and increase major project expenses by 5%.

Our steel importers will also face a triple jeopardy of global levies, including US tariffs of up to 50%, an incoming UK regime that slashes tariff-free quotas by 60% this July, and ongoing EU safeguarding duties of 25% on goods that are deemed as at risk under the Windsor framework. That plethora of additional costs on raw material coming into Northern Ireland is not balanced out when we hear that this Government want to invest in our small businesses, especially our defence SMEs in Northern Ireland; they promised a £50 million investment coming into those small industries, while at the same time adding costs to their power and raw materials.

The implications of the Bills in the King’s Speech have the potential to be truly life-changing. For example, there would be opportunities for my constituency if the powerhouse rail Bill and the railways and passenger benefits Bill could be brought to Northern Ireland, opening up the Knockmore line and Belfast International airport.

The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned the enhancing financial services Bill. There is an opportunity for this Government to come into Northern Ireland and make a real difference in car insurance, if they were to take the powers proposed in the Bill to regulate claims management companies in Northern Ireland in the same way as they do across the rest of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. What is breathtaking about this offer of £96,000 a year is that in a previous meeting—in a statement the company now disavows—we were told that paying compensation any higher would make the project financially unviable. That is to say that a project generating £15 million a year would be made financially unviable if it upped its offer to £144,000 a year in compensation.

I wonder how Quinbrook’s investors and shareholders would feel if I asked them why margins are so narrow and whether they can have confidence in Quinbrook. I give notice today that if that offer is not substantially improved, that is precisely what I intend to do: I will name every investor and every shareholder on the Floor of this House, and I will write to them and ask whether they are comfortable with what is being done to my communities in Rutland and Lincolnshire.

Quinbrook is offering less than 40% of the rate being offered on comparable developments in the east midlands. In fact, the only national programme offering less than Mallard Pass is Cleve Hill, which—surprise, surprise—is also owned by Quinbrook. Over the two years of construction works, Quinbrook issued a good-will handout of £200,000 as a one-off donation—not for each year, but across the two. Some residents’ homes have already lost 70% of their value. My question is: when will the Government stand up for us? I intend to amend the Government’s energy independence Bill to make community compensation mandatory for solar developments and to backdate it, but the Government could act first.

The King’s Speech also contained no measures to ban SLAPPs—the use of aggressive, unfounded legal threats to silence whistleblowers. I will use parliamentary privilege today to expose one of the most stomach-churning examples I have encountered. I hope this will shame the perpetrator into silence and similarly force the Government into action.

The company, which is called Enough, sells self-swab rape kits to women and children, and it does so on the back of a series of lies: that the kits are admissible in court—they are not; that women are more likely to be raped than to get cancer—they are not; that 430,000 people are raped in the UK every year—they are not; and that owning of its devices will deter a man from raping you—as if it is my responsibility as a woman to stop a man raping me.

More than 40 sexual assault charities have urged against use of the kits. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has also spoken out against them. The Advertising Standards Authority is investigating the company, as is Trading Standards. The kits prevent proper evidence collection and stop perpetrators’ DNA being checked against police records. A case has already collapsed because of the use of one such kit.

In a debate on Times Radio, I told one of the founders, Katie White, that I had seen the threatening letters that Enough had sent to rape charities and young women across our country. When asked if this was true by the journalist, Katie said, “No, not true.” This was also a lie.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point. I was previously the Minister responsible for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Traditionally, the MHRA’s influence has been in denying proper companies permission. It seems to me that now, in a digital age, we have a different problem, which is people coming up with rubbish and selling it over the counter unofficially—digitally. Do we not need a much more powerful set of legal and financial disincentives to really hammer the people selling these sorts of products?

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend has enormous experience, and it is exactly the MHRA that we need to look at. This is not a medical device, yet it is being treated as such.

I want to pay tribute to the brave young girl who has shared with me the letter sent to her by Enough. She is not a journalist or a campaigner, and she does not have the protections that I enjoy as a Member of Parliament, so Enough thought it could silence her. The first letter, signed personally by both founders, Katie White and Tom Allchurch, told her that she had seven days to comply, or they would pursue

“injunctive relief, damages for defamation, and recovery of legal costs.”

They accused her of scaremongering.

Then—and I want the House to hear this clearly—they said to a young woman who had simply dared to raise concerns:

“Carefully consider the long-term consequences of continuing this campaign…you not only risk serious legal considerations, but also lasting damage to your personal reputation, career prospects, and future opportunities.”

They threatened to destroy her future because she posted questions on Instagram. A week later, to ensure there was no ambiguity, they sent a second letter, explicitly calling it a cease and desist. This is predatory, and it is not a one-off.

A rape charity has also shared with me a letter it has received from Enough—lawyers threatening a rape charity into silence. I will tell Members what that letter said. After once again threatening legal action, Enough had the audacity to write:

“Our client considers such an approach to be in the best interests of survivors.”

Citing the best interests of survivors—said by a company that lies to survivors.

Enough’s targets are rape charities and young women. It has tried to make their lives hell. I urge the Government to ban self-swab rape kits, and I urge them to honour their promise to legislate against SLAPPs. I am speaking out because Enough has intimidated people into silence, and rape charities are quiet because they do not have the financial means to take legal action—legal action that would distract them from their duties to survivors.

What I have described today is a window into how our legal system is being weaponised to silence the vulnerable and punish those with the courage to tell the truth. We in this House, and the Government, must choose the side of victims and rape charities and make sure that individuals who commit rapes face the justice they deserve, instead of it being stolen by a company selling lies to women. It must end.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

There is no more important issue for the country than the stubbornly low growth rate and the structural barriers to the growth, productivity, enterprise, innovation and investment that this country so desperately needs, solutions to which have defied successive Governments since the coalition and the political crisis that Brexit unleashed in 2016. It gives me no pleasure to highlight that, for my constituents in Mid Norfolk, the King’s Speech is irrelevant without real delivery on the ground. In Mid Norfolk, the small businesses on which we rely are shedding jobs; disposable incomes are falling; high streets in market towns such as Dereham, Watton and Attleborough are struggling; pubs are closing; farmers are moving away from farming food to take the Government incentives for solar panels and commuter housing estates; and public services are being overwhelmed by rising demand from new housing and an ageing population.

This is fuelling a surge in political anger, which explains a lot of the election results last week. Across Suffolk, Norfolk and the fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, rural deprivation, rural poverty and the disproportionate impact of high energy prices on the rural economy—where, according to Treasury figures, every cup of coffee, schoolbook, pencil, lesson and journey costs 20% more than in cities, yet rural areas are underfunded—are driving real anger, based on real grievances. People are now paying European levels of tax for American levels of public services, and they are fed up. Unless we—this Government, this Parliament, this media, this Whitehall—respect and understand the grievance and set out a truly bold plan to deal with it, I fear that the rich will continue to leave this country, that the middle classes, the engine of growth, will conclude that it is no longer worth putting the work in, and that the poor will turn to the black market and crime.

[Sir John Hayes]

For that to happen, Governments and Parliament must take back control, and successive Governments have divested themselves of that control by, as Simon Case said when he left office, giving more power to unelected and unaccountable bodies of all kinds and types. For the Government to act, they need levers to pull to make the kind of difference that my hon. Friend described, and Governments have less and less ability to do that, yet the King’s Speech does not address that fundamental need for a change of direction.

[George Freeman]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The King’s speech that my constituents loved was the King’s speech in Washington, in which he spoke for the very best of this country. My point is that it is in all our interests—I say this as a friend of mainstream politics and democracy—that we tackle this challenge more boldly.

I welcome the speed with which newly elected Labour MPs have realised the scale and urgency of the problem of public and voter anger, stubbornly slow growth, rising unemployment and demand for public services exceeding capacity, but they are in danger of going for the wrong prescription. What we need is a renaissance of enterprise and innovation across the public and private sectors. Convenient though it may be for my party politically, the idea that the answer is a regicidal political infighting crisis and a leadership contest in office is for the birds. Take it from me: my party has tested that idea to destruction, and we have all paid the price. We do not need a Labour party beauty contest. We need a Parliament and a Government that get more urgent about the many laudable things they have set out to do, but we do not have 10 years to deliver it—we have a couple of years.

If the Labour party knifes this Prime Minister, he will be the seventh who will have been got rid of because of the structural deficit. I remember, when I first arrived here in 2010, the brilliant Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies explaining what the structural deficit is, and it is worth repeating. The normal deficit is when a Government do not earn as much as they are spending; because the economy has taken a downturn, they borrow a bit to keep spending and then pay it back. The structural deficit is that bit of the deficit that goes up every year even when the economy is growing, and it is driven by four things. In 2010, it was being driven by welfare, public sector pensions, and—the big one—health, and debt interest was remarkably low. After the coalition, we had capped off the rise in public sector pensions, incredibly painfully, and we had capped off the rise in welfare, incredibly painfully. Health has continued to defy reform, and it is bankrupting the public sector. We are now spending more than 50% on health, welfare and social support. That is simply not affordable.

We cannot cut, borrow or tax our way out of this. The only way out is to grow, not through dumping cheap housing across the countryside, but by backing the industries of tomorrow.

[Sir John Hayes]

I might press my hon. Friend a little further. The other way of dealing with that is to improve productivity, as I said earlier. He is right, of course, that the cost burden is fundamentally important, but it can be made better through greater efficiency. Indeed, the Government themselves have said that, as successive Governments have, but we must put in place measures—very often, tough measures—to deliver that kind of productivity.

[George Freeman]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will make a slightly different point, which is that there are huge opportunities for good growth in this country. Speaking as someone who has had a 16-year career backing the industries of tomorrow, whether it is in fusion, SMR nuclear technologies, agritech, bioscience, the bioeconomy on Teesside, or the satellite economy in Glasgow, we have an opportunity to turn these into the industries of tomorrow. I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy commitment to do it, but it is at 50,000 feet; we need to drop down to some more tangible and bolder policies to back those industries.

I know the Secretary of State gave a tub-thumping speech about the 1980s, but the truth is we have made a lot of progress over the last 20 years. I was doing my work as the Minister for Life Sciences, for agritech and for Science and Technology following in the footsteps of Paul Drayson and David Sainsbury. In life science, fusion, AI and quantum, we have built an unbelievably competitive economy, but other countries are moving fast. Our competitors are more agile. We are terrible at adopting technology in the public services. Our scale-ups are not getting the finance they need in the city. Kate Bingham in The Times today is right.

How do we unlock this? I want to suggest a ten-point plan for renewal. I support the Government’s ambition. I say this because if all of us fail, the Benches to my left of pub populists who are promising everything will win, and we will see even deeper disillusionment. I am calling in this speech for, first, real honesty of a 1979 scale about the extent of the emergency; secondly, bold devolution to the people, cities and mayors who know how to do it better—frankly, they could not do worse than Whitehall—thirdly, serious Whitehall reforms, so that we end the juvenile process of His Majesty’s Treasury playing Departments off against each other for funding, which in the end comes very late and is taken back; and fourthly, a serious backing for the innovation economy. I welcome the £20 billion of R&D, but how we allocate it is key. We need to allocate it in a way that attracts private investment. Fifthly, we need a bold revolution of tax incentives for enterprises—a new deal for new business. There should be no national insurance or VAT for a couple of years for someone starting a company and growing it. Sixthly, we need regulation for innovation. That is not just cutting regulations, but leading in setting the regulation. I welcome the Government’s work in setting up the Regulatory Innovation Office. We then have skills and patriotic capitalism. I do not think it is communism to get the city investing in British business. Boldness—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives

George Freeman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp]

As the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend is only too well placed to talk about that. As his Whip, I can only say that his jokes get better too.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) made, I can say that when I was the Minister for Space, I strongly supported space solar, which is a genuinely exciting British breakthrough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is making a really important point about food security. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, I know that we are hugely vulnerable to the geopolitics of the strait of Hormuz and global supply chains more broadly, so we need to do more to support UK agricultural production. In my patch, we have an 8,000-acre solar farm on farmland, which will see good, productive land taken out. This Friday, I am chairing the Central Norfolk Solar Factory Farm Alliance. We are very keen to see solar on reservoirs, motorways, council buildings—on any surfaces we can—but not on good farmland.

[Lincoln Jopp]

And there we see the battle. Without wishing to get into other controversial areas, it is a little like proposals to build on green belt. If everything else were built on first and we protected the green belt, we would be a richer country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I think it is about the quality of the land that is being used. It might be a small amount, but if it is very good-quality agricultural land—as 65% of it is, according to what I have here—the hon. Member’s point does not stand up on that front. We just have to be very realistic about it, because there are many different factors. The hon. Member could say that a huge proportion of the country is taken up with golf courses, and say, “Well, we don’t take that away,” but what we are saying is that this is a fix that is very popular.

Solar does not necessarily work all the time. The actual amount of energy generated is a very small proportion. Sometimes it can work only 10% of the time. It does not work during the night, and there are other issues about the transmission of the energy itself, because of the times of the day that can be used. That raises questions about the grid capacity and the grid connections.

[George Freeman]

On the important point that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) made about connections, what we are discovering in Norfolk is that the grid connection investment is an open door to much bigger solar applications. We have an 8,000-acre one that I am dealing with today. Land agents tell me that 20,000 acres in Norfolk are now being released because we have the grid connection. Much of that will be good land. The danger is that the connectivity driving the investment means, unfortunately, that the land use argument gets distorted.

[Sarah Bool]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I think it also speaks to a wider issue about efficiency in the use of land. The EN-1 national policy statement says that we must be efficient in the use of natural resources, including land use itself. I think it is apt that we talk about floating solar, because we are not taking out agricultural land; we are using land that is serving one purpose but can legitimately serve another without disruption.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

George Freeman Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this debate, we need to remember that 95% of our rail infrastructure is made by British Steel. British Steel also supplies three quarters of every major construction project in this country. Thanks to the Chancellor, we are about to invest £10 billion in the rearmament of this country; much of what we need to put in place will be made by British Steel. How can we afford to let British Steel go out of business today? How can we vote against the Bill? British Steel is not simply a pillar of British industry: it is a cornerstone of our economic security.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me, as a card-carrying advocate of industrial strategy, that this argument applies to some of our other key high-growth sectors, such as fusion, quantum and space? We have to accept that the days of easy globalisation are over and be a bit more strategic about how we support our emerging industries.

[Liam Byrne]

Mr Speaker, you know that I could answer that question all day, but you would rule me out of order, so I will confine my remarks to the Bill. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right, and that is why we have to work harder across the House to build a consensus about the big calls that we need to get right for our future.

British Steel faces significant headwinds, not just from Chinese steelmakers flooding the market, but from the new 25% tariff from the United States, and we have to rise to the challenge of decarbonisation, yet we in this House must keep our eyes on the prize ahead of us. The Chancellor has just committed £100 billion-worth of capital investment, we are building affordable homes at a pace not seen in decades and we are investing £10 billion in defence. There is a market to seize, but only if we have the means to supply it. British Steel cannot profit from Britain’s future if Chinese firms are allowed to kill it today.

Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

George Freeman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 General Committees

[Jim Allister]

The Brexit referendum was a national vote, and it asked a simple question: “Do you want the United Kingdom to leave the EU?” It did not ask the question, “Do you want GB to leave, and leave Northern Ireland behind?” That is what we got, in that this United Kingdom surrendered control over those 300 areas of law to that foreign Parliament. The hon. Member may be comfortable with the fact that my constituents are disenfranchised in the making of the laws that govern them. I wonder whether he would he be so comfortable with that fact if it was his constituents who were disenfranchised in the making of laws, in those 300 areas, that govern them—I suspect not.

All I ask is that my constituents have the same rights —the same enfranchising rights—as everyone else’s constituents in Great Britain. Is that too much to ask? And yet, in the making of this regulation, this Parliament is answering that question: it is too much to ask, because Northern Ireland, we are told, must be subject to foreign colonial rule. That is what it is. When we say to an area, “You will be governed by laws, not that you make, or that your Parliament makes, but that a foreign Parliament makes,” that is the very essence of colonial rule, and that is what we are subjected to.

The degree to which the Government—of course, this was done under the previous Government—have abandoned sovereignty over Northern Ireland is illustrated by the explanatory document that accompanies these regulations. It says that there will be limited impact, but that the Government did not conduct an impact assessment. Why not? Well, paragraph 9.1 of the explanatory document tells us:

“A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared…because measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of assessment.”

So laws that will affect my constituents are “out of scope” of assessment by this Parliament, and this Government, because the right to make those laws was given away to the European Parliament.

This is not about whether, in itself, the type of USB is controversial or not. It is about the constitutional point that Northern Ireland has been disenfranchised—robbed of the right to have its laws made in its own country, and robbed of the right, now, to even have an impact assessment, because those 300 areas of law are beyond the scope of assessment. That is why, for this proposal, there is only an EU impact assessment—no UK impact assessment. That, in a way, says it all.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Member is making a powerful and coherent argument. I think what he is saying is that this may or may not be a good law, but that he would have liked its impact to have been assessed properly and the people of Northern Ireland to have had a say on it—the say that he has in the Committee today. Does he think, overall, that this is a good law, albeit one that, constitutionally, he would have preferred to have been passed a different way?

[Jim Allister]

I said that what type of USB is used is not particularly controversial. But how it is made and imposed could not be more controversial, because it is imposed through the avenue of disenfranchising the people of Northern Ireland and saying, “You will have no say over whether it is a good or bad law. It is someone else’s law, and it will be imposed upon you.” That is the mischief that I am addressing. In that mischief lies the reason why this Parliament should not be a nodding dog to someone else’s regulation.

The Minister tells us that the Government will probably bring the same requirements into GB. That is well and good, but it should have been the Government—not a foreign jurisdiction—that were bringing the prescription for the type of USBs into the whole of the United Kingdom. They should not have surrendered control over that to a foreign power.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Freeman Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is not a new colleague, and her advocacy of the automotive sector, particularly given her constituency interest in Stellantis, is well known and welcome. This was a challenging area, particularly for her constituency, that we inherited. The previous Government had neglected engagement with the business. Since we took office, we have had extensive engagement with Carlos Tavares and the Stellantis team. The journey that the automotive sector has to go on for decarbonisation presents challenges, and there is a challenging picture across all of Europe, but the neglect of the previous Government has ended. Not only am I closely engaged on the issue, as are my ministerial team, but so is the Secretary of State for Transport, particularly in relation to the zero emission vehicle mandate—a key area of policy for the business. We will continue that work, and I will continue to keep my hon. Friend, and any other local MPs, updated, as we have done to date.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to what I think is one of the most important Departments in Government. As a sometimes lonely voice on the Conservative Benches advocating for industrial strategy, I signal support for his intention. I am sure that he agrees that the big challenge is to convert our phenomenal science and technology leadership into sovereign industrial supply chain leadership around this country. Having led the strategy for life sciences—quantum, engineering biology, fusion—may I ask whether he agrees that the key to this is cross-departmental Whitehall work, and ensuring that we do not end up with endless earnest, well-intended committees, but actually engage the small businesses, entrepreneurs and investors who are driving these sectors of tomorrow?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I genuinely thank the hon. Member for those comments, because I am serious when I say that I believe that industrial strategy should command support across the political spectrum. That is the norm in a lot of comparable countries to ours. I recognise not just the work that he did, but the number of times he did it; he was called back repeatedly by the last Government to do that work. I am often struck by the comments that Lord Willetts made in the Policy Exchange pamphlet about the lack of a supply chain for offshore wind really benefiting Scandinavian economies, rather than ours.

There are common areas of interest, and to make this industrial strategy more successful than the very credible approach taken by the Conservative Government when Theresa May was Prime Minister, we need it to last longer, and for it to have consistency and permanence. I know that the advocates and designers of that policy wanted the chance to do that. The strategy must also be cross-departmental. It will be led by my Department, but it cannot be solely my Department that is engaged. I can tell the hon. Member that all my Cabinet colleagues share our objectives and a keenness to make this work. We do not just want strategies put on the shelf for the short or long term; we want the strategy to make a difference in the communities that everyone in the Chamber represents. I welcome that cross-party support.

Budget Resolutions

George Freeman Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

We heard the Chancellor talk about how strong the growth in UK investment has been. We heard about additional investment in the productivity of our national health service and, crucially, about measures that will increase the attractiveness of investing in some of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), representing the Green party, did not welcome the £270 million for advanced manufacturing in clean aviation and clean vehicles, and the £120 million for clean tech manufacturing? That is the UK investing in the technology of clean growth, is it not?

Financial Risk Checks for Gambling

George Freeman Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

They say that all good things come to those who wait, so I hope the Minister will listen to my words and then reassure me that I have not waited in vain. I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. When more than 40 or 50 colleagues turn up to Westminster Hall—for those listening, and who are not aware—we clearly have a problem. Actually, I suggest we have two problems that the Minister present has the great honour of helping us to deal with.

The first is the very serious problem of the increasing number of people in this country who find themselves in the turmoil of addictive online gambling. That is a real problem. The second is the fragility of the finances of racing, a sport that we all love. We need to be clear about those two problems and not to conflate them too much, as has been done, and to work out how to deal with them both, because both problems are real.

I have no particular interest in racing, other than a long family history and connection. I have been to the races many times, both before my time here and as a Member of Parliament, and occasionally as a guest of the BHA, which supported the work I did to create the Bridge of Hope charity. I was, with pride, closely involved with the 2013 Offshore Gambling Bill, promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who represents Newmarket, to bring offshore betting within the purview of the levy to give racing a serious boost. I do not have a racetrack in my constituency yet; I have waited for the Boundary Commission to put Fakenham in my patch for many years, but it has refused to do so. I enjoy the little tracks as much as the big—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has just made. It is a great pleasure to follow him. My brother trains in California, and I have spent many hours as an underpaid hot walker, walking his hots around the track in both California and, in rather cooler weather, at Woodbine in the winter. I am a happy and assiduous attendee at Fakenham races, one of the country’s great regional tracks

I think the House will be aware that I really stand this afternoon because of my own family experience. My father was a jump jockey who rode through the ’40s and ’50s. He rode for Sir Peter Cazalet and rode Her late Majesty the Queen Mother’s horses. In 1958, he won the grand national on Mr What and the King George on Lochroe. With my mother, he bred Specify, who went on to win the national in ’71. However, my father’s is a tragic story. After many head injuries, head injury-induced depression and psychosis, alcohol addiction, gambling and bankruptcy, his life—indeed, that of my family—collapsed in 1967. It is a familiar tale for many sporting heroes, but a story that, thanks to the great work of the racing industry, we do not see any more because we are better at looking after jockeys and better at detecting head injuries.

It is in that context that I want to make clear that I rise today because I take the unintended consequences very seriously—the damage of great sport when not properly regulated, and the damage of gambling and bankruptcy. I am not at all relaxed about those dangers. I hope it is, therefore, all the more powerful when I join colleagues who have spoken today in saying how seriously I worry that this well-intended measure, designed to tackle the curse of online gambling, is in danger of not solving that problem, but exacerbating another: the deeply fragile finances of a great sport that all Members present, across all parties, have expressed our love for.

I am fearful that we are in danger of making a mistake that, in 15 years in Parliament and 30 years of watching, I have seen all too often, which is the mistake of do-somethingery: “Something must be done. This is something—let’s do it.” It is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with the law of unintended consequences, punishing the innocent and doing very little to tackle the real problem, and seriously damaging the financial resilience of this great industry. I think it would be a huge mistake, and a great shame on us as a generation and on the Government who allowed it to happen. In that spirit, I am here to try to give the Minister some helpful tips on how we might find the right way through this.

I thank the petitioners who brought us here today, as well as the Racing Post and the British Horseracing Authority, which have done such good work to raise the issues. I will highlight three important pieces of data shared in the British Horseracing Authority brief. The first relates to the impact of these measures. More than 15,000 horserace bettors took part in the Right to Bet survey in the autumn. Of those, more than half said they will stop betting, or bet less, if new checks are introduced, while one in 10 bettors is already using a black market bookmaker. Some 40% are prepared to use the black market if clunky enforcement affordability checks are implemented, 90% oppose postcodes or job titles being used to determine their ability to bet, and 26% have already experienced an affordability check ahead of the passing of any legislation.

Secondly, the briefing makes clear the full impact of these reforms if introduced as they stand. There will potentially be a £50 million cost to this industry, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has just made clear, is already struggling. That is not something that we should accept lightly.

Thirdly, the briefing points out that a £500 a year upper threshold for frictionless checks works out at a net spend of just £1.37 a day. Are we seriously intending to damage the viability of this great sport and this great industry in order to look busy in monitoring a £1.37 risk? This is a disproportionate measure and I fear that it will have major unintended consequences.

I will not repeat or rehearse the arguments that have been made very eloquently by many colleagues. I will just highlight the fact that there are many who are not able to speak here today, including many peers in the upper House, whom I will not name but who have taken a very strong interest in the issue, and my right hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and for Witham (Priti Patel), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is a Minister. He is also a distinguished amateur jockey who would have spoken today had he been allowed to do so. Many people from across the House have not been able to speak in this debate but would have done so very forcefully.

I will make one or two points that perhaps have not been made as fully as they might have been. First, as has been said, racing is a vital mainstay of the decentralised rural economy all round this country, and it is absolutely key to the levelling-up mission that the Government have set out. Yes, it is the sport of kings, as others have said, but it is also the sport of stable lads and ladesses, and the sport of small businesses all around the country. It is the sport that provides the pyramid at the bottom of which are the point to point races, the pony clubs and all the grassroots equestrian activity that we love and rely on.

From Yarmouth to Chepstow, from Wincanton to Kelso and from Cartmel to Catterick, many tracks are integral to their local economy. Horseracing touches on and is instrumental in 60 marginal seats, which is not a small number in an election year, creates 80,000 jobs directly and 100,000 indirectly, and 8,000 small and medium-sized enterprises are involved with it. This is not a fringe activity; it is a very key activity at the heart of our decentralised economy.

I will just make another point. An earlier speaker suggested that we do not need betting to support the boat race or one-off events. Horses are not machines and we cannot have an industry based on one race a year. The reason we can have the Derby is that we have all the other races that build up to it, and it is the same with the grand national. Those two races are the pinnacles of great pyramids of activity that start at small, windy tracks all around the country. Also, horses cannot just be parked for 364 days a year and then asked to run; the training and the conditioning of horses requires activity all through the year.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Throughout this debate, we have not really mentioned these beautiful creatures, the joy we get from watching them race, or all those people who work with, train and look after them. That is really important to all of us who have spoken today.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes a good point. They are beautiful and what a joy it is to watch them exercising, whether in Malton in Yorkshire or wherever else around the country. The sight of horses exercising in preparation for racing is part of the rural economy.

Secondly, I want to make the point that horseracing, as an activity and an industry, is a jewel in the crown of our global soft power. The truth is that, having grown up in Newmarket as a child, I have watched as that town and its horseracing have become very reliant—over-reliant, I would suggest—on a few very wealthy families. Those families have done an amazing service to our sport, but we have to make sure that we are not reliant on a very small number of individuals to maintain the viability of an entire industry. That point puts this debate in a wider context.

Crucially, I also want to highlight that there is a very serious problem in our society of addiction to gambling, particularly online gambling, and there is a growing body of evidence—I say this as the former Minister for Life Sciences and as somebody who has had a career in medical research—that the causes of such addictive behaviour and cycles of addiction are not simply based on repeat activity. They are a symptom of much deeper underlying causes, which are often genetic and nearly always neurological. There are a whole series of conditions that drive that underlying cycle of addictive behaviour. It is not that someone has a bet on a horse, then a second bet and it is entirely addictive. Indeed, in my own experience, betting on horses is quite the opposite; I have very seldom made much money doing it and I very seldom carry on doing it with that in mind. No, that is not what drives the addictive behaviour; it is underpinning neuroscience and wider conditions. As a society we really need to take those factors very seriously.

[Matt Hancock]

Is there not the more specific distinction, which the hon. Gentleman almost drew out, that the placing of a bet and then waiting many minutes as a minimum for a result is neurologically distinct from a bet that gives an immediate hit? Where the repeat bet would be based on the physiological immediacy of the previous result, horseracing breaks that and therefore has a different neurological impact in relation to addiction. Would it therefore not be right in law and in policy to completely separate the proposals for online games of chance from the wonderful sport of horseracing? It would be easy to do in law—let’s just split the two.

[George Freeman]

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates the logic of the argument I was building towards—he is exactly right. That is why if we are seriously thinking of tackling this curse of addictive online gambling, surely we should be looking at a whole range of other behaviours and products. The proposal seems to be a disproportionate way of tackling a real problem, if indeed that is what it is. Others have mentioned the logical consistency of extending these checks on alcohol, tobacco, car hire purchases and—dare I say it—mortgages, and all sorts of things that we might say people cannot afford. I worry that this could be the thin end of a very big wedge in which the state decides that it is its job not to regulate properly, but to start asking whether people can afford to do something. That is an Orwellian dystopia that I do not want to live in.

The truth is we have to think properly about the sustainable resilience of racing. I absolutely echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson): prize money is falling fast, costs have risen fast and are stubbornly high, and competition is eating our lunch. If we look to Irish and French racing, we see that we are haemorrhaging from a serious industry. This proposal would not make a small reform to a healthy industry—the industry is struggling and it needs our help, but I am worried that the law of unintended consequences will make the situation worse.

I want to make a point about technology. It has often been asserted that we do not have the technology to do these checks properly. That is right at the moment, but would it not be an amazing thing if we decided to use technology properly—we are already an AI powerhouse—to start to analyse addictive behaviour and look at the trades on digital betting that indicate such behaviour? Over 70 markers of harmful gambling have been identified in studies, 16 of which really drive this activity. I suggest there might be an opportunity for us to use technology better to tackle those behaviours online that drive the problem we are trying to solve.

I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for West Suffolk on track racing, which I would go so far as to say is one of the best ways to introduce people to responsible gambling. I remember taking my two children to the 2000 Guineas and giving them £5 each, and they decided to put it together on an each-way bet. It was a smart move; they are clever children. Even more clever, my son decided to take my daughter’s advice, because she knows about horses, and he looked at the odds, because he knows about numbers, and they put £5 each way on Galileo Gold, who stormed to victory. They learned a lot that day about gambling. They saw people who had drunk too much and who were losing too much. They didn’t. I took the money and gave it to them. They discovered a lot, and on-track gambling is a fabulous way of getting people to realise that most of the decisions we take in life are a gamble one way or another, and it is how we deal with them that really matters.

I am not here in any way for the health of the gambling industry. I am interested in the health of UK racing and the real identification of the at-risk addiction that we see cursing so much of our society, in particular those games of chance that have driven such addiction. I simply say to the Minister that I know he has a difficult job on his hands. I have sat at that Dispatch Box with a packed Westminster Hall calling for reform. The Prime Minister, in North Yorkshire, understands the importance of the industry. The Secretary of State’s constituency is next to Newmarket—in fact, she has the breeder of Galileo Gold in her constituency—and understands it. It is not too late to change tact and come back with a serious package of measures designed for the twin problems of the sustainability of racing’s finances and the genuine opportunity for this country to lead in harnessing technology and smart regulation for the tackling of gambling addiction. If not, I urge the Minister to look seriously at the net loss provisions, which are too low. When an industry warns that something will cost it £50 million, we have a duty to listen.

Children’s Mental Health Week 2024

George Freeman Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for his passionate intervention. He is right that prevention is better than cure. Anybody who knows anyone who has lost someone through suicide will know that it is not a pain someone ever gets over. They simply hope to God that they can learn to live with it in some way, so that they may get through their own lives with a semblance of existence. If there is any way in which we could prevent even one needless loss of life, that would go a long way.

The 3 Dads Walking are incredible—I have had the honour of following their marvellous work—but there are many people who are not in the public light, and many who are too embarrassed to admit how they lost their loved ones, for fear of blame and shame and what that means. We know that many people who have lost people in that way feel they want to take their own lives, and often do.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate and her passionate advocacy. Many of us across the House share a deep understanding of the need for it. Does she agree that, if we are to tackle the causes, we need better data? We need to understand what is driving this epidemic. I particularly want to draw attention to the children of alcoholics and the great work done by the National Association for Children of Alcoholics; the children of divorce and conflict; and those children badly affected during the pandemic. Does the hon. Member agree that we need better data to understand the causes, then we can start to prevent it, as well as, importantly, treating it when it occurs. We could prevent a lot more of this.

[Dr Allin-Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that there is definitely space for more research. Adverse childhood experiences are the single biggest driver of mental ill health in children and, later on, in adults. I will touch on that later.

I want to know today when the Government will finally get their act together to end the wait for children’s mental health services. We are sick and tired of the same old meaningless platitudes from the Government. I know the Minister: I had the pleasure of working with her in my role as a shadow Minister. I know she is decent, good and kind, and she absolutely wants the best for children. I believe that. I also understand that her hands, regardless of what she might want to do, will be tied. However, in my role as shadow Cabinet Minister for mental health over three and a half years, the number of times the Minister and her predecessors have harped on, quite frankly, about the £2.3 billion they have put into mental health services! They have used that figure no fewer than 90 times in five years for many different things, depending on the focus of the debate. Whenever we have a debate about eating disorders, the £2.3 billion comes out. Whenever we have a debate about access to IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—the £2.3 billion comes out. Whenever we have a children’s mental health debate, it is again rolled out. I understand that, but we really need tangible answers because the waiting lists grow, children are let down and families suffer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I could not agree more. I hope my speech will make everybody here realise that we need much more understanding about ACEs. Some countries have that understanding and roll out trauma-informed services across the board, including police, education, welfare and health. A better understanding of ACEs will lead to more specialism and more people understanding this area. Trauma-informed schools, for instance, would also mean that teachers pick things up and go deeper into the issues of childhood trauma. I was a secondary school teacher before I became a Member of Parliament, and I sometimes wish I had known about ACEs, given some of the behavioural challenges I faced, which would make someone think, “That is just a very difficult child.” If I had known more, I would probably have picked up the behaviour as that of a traumatised child, rather than that of somebody who was consistently causing trouble. We would therefore deal with children differently.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, and I am keen to hear as much of it as I can. To the point I was trying to make earlier, extreme poverty is one cause of childhood trauma, but there are many others. Like many people in this House—I put my own hand up—I experienced childhood trauma, but I was in a materially privileged family. Poverty can provide a lot of those drivers that the hon. Lady has talked about, but I was taken out of the arms of my father by the police at 11 months, and I was a child carer of an alcoholic parent. Poverty has a part to play, but does the hon. Lady agree that we need to make sure we frame this in the context of the real causes, some of which are not related to poverty but to other chronic problems, such as alcohol, addiction or domestic violence? If we view the matter simply through the prism of a poverty attack, we are in danger of missing out some of the causes that are really embedded in repeated patterns of trauma within families.

[Wera Hobhouse]

First of all, it is brave that the hon. Gentleman is sharing his experiences of trauma. I think we need more people to do that. He is also absolutely right that not all of this is directly linked to poverty. Poverty or extreme poverty is one ACE among many others, and these things can happen in any family. Those who are doing research into ACEs would always recognise that trauma is not just suffered in a particular type of household but across socioeconomic backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman will know how difficult it is to overcome the traumas of early childhood and deal with them.

I want to make some progress. I am sorry that I cannot expand on ACEs now, but I encourage everybody who is here to inform themselves about them and the research that the WAVE Trust has done into the subject, which is fascinating and ongoing. That research suggests that the adverse childhood experiences of abuse and neglect alone, which can happen in any family, cost the UK more than £15 billion a year. Clearly, the cost of preventing adverse childhood experiences is less than that of inaction.

Unnoticed and unaddressed, adverse childhood experiences can be a lifelong sentence. Childhood trauma does not end with the child and it gets transferred to the next generation—that is also something that the APPG for childhood trauma has researched further. Then, there is a spiral or a vicious circle of repeat trauma. If childhood trauma is not addressed, those who become parents will carry their adverse childhood experiences into the next generation, and their children may suffer trauma, too. We must end this cycle, and that starts with early intervention. One factor that can help to prevent childhood trauma is whether the child feels capable and deserving. A supportive and reliable adult presence is key, and we often hear about how teachers, for example, have helped a great deal because they, as an adult, have been in the room when home life has been very difficult.

As I have said, trauma-informed services across the board—in schools, the NHS, the police and our prisons—would have a transformative impact on the whole of our society. Social workers must be supported to recognise the effect of ACEs early in children’s lives. Early years practitioners can spot signs of trauma at the age at which it is most likely to be resolved. I hope to hear commitments from the Minister on implementing trauma-informed services. Examining how trauma affects minds allows us to gain an enriched understanding of behaviour, and I have mentioned how that would support teachers. Rounded insights and changes in approach lead to better care for children, and better care for children now will be felt for generations to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Freeman Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call George Freeman.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Sorry, Question 2.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to help increase inward investment into the science and technology sector.

[The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

My Secretary of State was so savvy that she brought in a science Minister and now, under her stewardship, science and technology is booming in the Department for Business and Trade. The UK has the No. 1 tech ecosystem in Europe, raising more venture capital than France and Germany combined. Science and tech is not just for fans; we have now mainstreamed it with the Office for Investment, which is reaching out to companies around the world to highlight the advantages of investing in the UK, bringing in over £5 billion of investment, as was announced at the global investment summit just last year.

[George Freeman]

Mr Speaker, you can see that I am using my freedom on the Back Benches to improve my fitness and to make myself as fit as the Department.

May I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the Secretary of State and the team at the Department for Business and Trade on the work they are doing, particularly with the global investment summit? There is a wall of money out there globally to invest in UK science and tech—in life science, quantum, fusion and agritech—and we are beginning, finally, to attract that money. What plans does the Department have to make it easier for global investors to deploy money at scale in UK clusters?

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend will know more than most, having had this brief previously. Of course, we are out there sourcing investment for the UK and, as I mentioned, we are already beating France and Germany. Further afield, the UK is the third country, behind the US and China, to reach the landmark of $1 trillion in value. We have the concierge service with the Office for Investment. We have also recently secured £4.5 billion through the advanced manufacturing plan. That, coupled with the research and development budget of around £39.8 billion between 2022-25, shows that we are ready to enable investment in the UK and to manufacture products in this area.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

George Freeman Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work. I am aware of his involvement on behalf of his constituents. I also put on record my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor—and, indeed, the Prime Minister—who cleared his diary on several occasions to deal with these issues. Conversations took place with the Lady Chief Justice, but I am not at liberty to reveal their content. I was not at the meeting anyway, but we do not tend to publish legal advice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are quite a few lawyers in both Houses. They do not necessarily share the same position on legal matters, and I have no doubt that legal opinions will be made clear. However, this case is exceptional. It is an exceptional situation, so we have done the exceptional.

We want to ensure that this never happens again, and the hon. Gentleman is right that private prosecutions played a part. He asked for a statement and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will make one at some point. My right hon. and learned Friend has expressed an interest in, and some concerns about, private prosecutions in the UK, as has the Justice Committee. I am therefore sure that he will come back to the House on that at some point.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I thank the Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister for gripping the matter as quickly as they have. I know that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor were advocates on this matter when they were Back Benchers. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who gripped the matter after his election in 2015 and in his role as a Minister.

I was never Minister for the Post Office, but I remember being asked, as a Minister in the Department, to cover for an absent Minister. I refused to just read out the speech I had been given and asked for a day of proper briefings from officials. When I asked to meet Paula Vennells, I was told that she refused to meet me without her lawyer.

The saga raises important issues about scrutiny, accountability and responsibility in public office and public administration. They are difficult questions that the House must tackle. Will the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Cabinet Office therefore look at the wider lessons from this appalling scandal about the failures of accountability and scrutiny in our system of government, and about this House’s ultimate responsibility to the people of this country to ensure that the Government serve the people, not the other way round?

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) made, how much money was stolen from the postmasters? Will the Minister consider some sort of corporate fraud action to get the money back? The money was taken off them and us, and we should get it back from the company that took it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and his question. I am pleased that Paula Vennells has handed back her CBE. It was absolutely the right thing to do. As part of the inquiry, at some point we will of course identify who was responsible—individuals and organisations. In terms of corporate fraud, the beneficiary to some extent was the Post Office. Of course, the Post Office had to be funded by the Government to make the payments, so it is difficult to see how we would get the money back from the Post Office. There are other organisations, such as Fujitsu. I have talked about that previously, and we will look at that once the inquiry has concluded.

On scrutiny, many Ministers and officials will ask themselves questions about what happened. It is our job to ask the key questions at the right time and not necessarily to take the first answer we are given. We should push back and ensure that we get to the bottom of the issue. There is no question but that there were failures. I will not identify who failed, but many people will be asking themselves serious questions. The inquiry may well identify where we could have done things better.