Defence and Security
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before the Prime Minister’s statement, let me point out that the Government’s own ministerial code says that the text of statements should be provided in advance to the Opposition and the Speaker. It does not provide for the text to be redacted. I am particularly concerned by reports that some of the redacted information was provided to the media in advance. If correct, that is very discourteous to this House, and I take it very seriously. It could well have been leaked, in which case I hope that there will be an inquiry into what has happened. I ask the Prime Minister to look into what has happened and to report back to me and to the House as soon as possible.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Let me begin by giving my word to this House that the statement was not given to the media. I will absolutely have an inquiry into that. I spoke to you, Mr Speaker, this morning. I would not be discourteous to you, the Leader of the Opposition or the House in that way. I give you that assurance from this Dispatch Box. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition, and I will have that inquiry.
Three years since Russia launched its vile assault on Ukraine, I would like to address the international situation and the implications for Britain’s national security. In my first week as Prime Minister, I travelled to the NATO summit in Washington with a simple message: NATO and our allies could trust that this Government would fulfil Britain’s and, indeed, the Labour party’s, historic role of putting our collective security first. I spoke of my great pride in leading the party that was a founding member of NATO, the inheritor of the legacy of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, who not only stood behind Winston Churchill in wartime, but won the peace by establishing the great post-war order here and abroad.
It is a proud legacy, but in a world like ours it is also a heavy one, because the historical load that we must carry to fulfil our duty is not as light as it once was. We must bend our backs across this House, because these times demand a united Britain and we must deploy all our resources to achieve security.
Mr Speaker, as a young man, I vividly remember the Berlin Wall coming down. It felt as if we were casting off the shackles of history; a continent united by freedom and democracy. If you had told me then that in my lifetime we would see Russian tanks rolling into European cities again, I would not have believed you. Yet here we are in a world where everything has changed, because three years ago that is exactly what happened.
Britain can be proud of our response. British families opened their doors to fleeing Ukrainians, with the yellow and light blue fluttering on town halls and churches the length and breadth of the country. The Conservatives in government were robust in our response. I supported that in opposition and I applaud them for it now. We have built on that, bringing our support for Ukraine to a record level this year.
We should not pretend that any of this has been easy. Working people have already felt the cost of Russian actions through rising prices and bills. None the less, one of the great lessons of our history is that instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores and that tyrants like Putin only respond to strength. Russia is a menace in our waters, in our airspace and on our streets. It has launched cyber-attacks on our NHS and—only seven years ago—a chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury.
We must stand by Ukraine, because if we do not achieve a lasting peace the economic instability and the threats to our security will only grow. And so, as the nature of that conflict changes, as it has in recent weeks, it brings our response into sharper focus; a new era that we must meet—as we have so often in the past—together and with strength.
The fundamentals of British strategy are unchanged. I know that the current moment is volatile, but there is still no good reason why they cannot endure, so let me now spell out to the House exactly how we will renew them for these times. First, NATO is the bedrock of our security and will remain so. It has brought peace for 75 years. It is as important today as the day on which it was founded. Putin thought he would weaken NATO; he has achieved the exact opposite. It remains the organisation that receives the vast bulk of our defence effort in every domain, and that must continue.
Secondly, we must reject any false choice between our allies—between one side of the Atlantic and the other. That is against our history, country and party, because it is against our fundamental national interest. The US is our most important bilateral alliance. It straddles everything from nuclear technology to NATO, Five Eyes, AUKUS and beyond. It has survived countless external challenges in the past. We have fought wars together. We are the closest partners in trade, growth and security.
So this week, when I meet President Trump, I will be clear. I want this relationship to go from strength to strength. But strength in this world also depends on a new alliance with Europe. As I said in Paris last week, our commitment to European defence and security is unwavering, but now is the time to deepen it. We will find new ways to work together on our collective interests and threats, protecting our borders, bringing our companies together and seeking out new opportunities for growth.
Thirdly, we seek peace not conflict, and we believe in the power of diplomacy to deliver that end. That of course is most pressing in Ukraine. Nobody in this House or this country wants the bloodshed to continue—nobody. I have seen the devastation in Ukraine at first hand. What you see in places such as Bucha never leaves you. But for peace to endure in Ukraine and beyond, we need deterrence. I know that this House will endorse the principle of winning peace through strength, so we will continue to stand behind the people of Ukraine. We must ensure that they negotiate their future, and we will continue to put them in the strongest position for a lasting peace.
Fourthly, we must change our national security posture, because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices, and through those choices, as hard as they are, we must also seek unity—a whole-society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people. I started this statement by recalling the era of Attlee and Bevin, and this year we will mark many anniversaries of that greatest generation. We must find courage in our history and courage in who we are as a nation, because courage is what our own era now demands of us. So, starting today, this Government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027 and we will maintain that for the rest of this Parliament. Let me spell that out. That means spending £13.4 billion more on defence every year from 2027.
However, we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyber-attacks, sabotage and even assassination, so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. On top of the funding of 2.5% that I have just announced, we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of our nation, which means that, taken together, we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.
We must go further still. I have long argued that in the face of ongoing and generational challenges, all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. Subject to economic and fiscal conditions, and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.
I want to be very clear: the nature of warfare has changed significantly. That is clear from the battlefield in Ukraine, so we must modernise and reform our capabilities as we invest. I equally want to be very clear that, like any other investment we make, we must seek value for money. That is why we are putting in place a new defence reform and efficiency plan, jointly led by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary.
This investment means that the UK will strengthen its position as a leader in NATO and in the collective defence of our continent, and we should welcome that role. It is good for our national security. It is also good for this Government’s defining mission to restore growth to our economy, and we should be optimistic about what it can deliver in those terms. But, in the short term, it can only be funded through hard choices. In this case, that means we will cut our spending on development assistance, moving from 0.5% of GNI today to 0.3% in 2027, fully funding our increased investment in defence.
I want to be clear to the House that this is not an announcement that I am happy to make. I am proud of our pioneering record on overseas development, and we will continue to play a key humanitarian role in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, tackling climate change and supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges like vaccination. In recent years, the development budget was redirected towards asylum backlogs, paying for hotels, so as we are clearing that backlog at a record pace, there are efficiencies that will reduce the need to cut spending on our overseas programmes. None the less, it remains a cut, and I will not pretend otherwise. We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and to rebuild a capability on development. But at times like this, the defence and security of the British people must always come first. That is the No. 1 priority of this Government.
But it is not just about spending; our whole approach to national security must now change. We will have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses and the British people to play a bigger part, and to use this to renew the social contract of our nation—the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another. The first test of our defence policy is of course whether it keeps our country safe, but the second should be whether it improves the conditions of the British people. Does it help provide the economic security that working people need? Because, ultimately, as Attlee and Bevin knew, that is fundamental to national security as well. We will use this investment as an opportunity. We will translate defence spending into British growth, British jobs, British skills and British innovation. We will use the full powers of the Procurement Act 2023 to rebuild our industrial base.
As the strategic defence review is well under way, and across Government we are conducting a number of other reviews relevant to national security, it is obvious that those reviews must pull together. So before the NATO summit in June we will publish a single national security strategy and bring it to this House, because, as I said earlier, that is how we must meet the threats of our age: together and with strength—a new approach to defence, a revival of our industrial base, a deepening of our alliances; the instruments of our national power brought together; creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering security for our country.
Mr Speaker, at moments like these in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted. It has come together. And it has demonstrated strength. That is what the security of our country needs now, and it is what this Government will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
The Prime Minister
May I first thank the Leader of the Opposition for her support in relation to today’s announcement and on Ukraine? That is important to the Government, to the House and, most of all, to the Ukrainians and President Zelensky. They want to see unity in our House—they value unity in our House—as they enter, after three years of conflict, a very difficult stage in the war with Russia and against Russian aggression. I hope and believe that we can maintain that unity in relation to Ukraine, as we have done for three years. I am very proud that this House has done that, notwithstanding a change of Government, for three long years—we will continue to do so.
The Leader of the Oppositions asks about the money for defence, security and intelligence. There was new money in the Budget in relation to that, but what I am doing here is in addition to the 2.5%, which is the increased defence spend as it has always been understood, to recognise that the nature of the threats to our county are different now, and that the security and intelligence services play a key part for us and our allies in our defence. That takes the total to 2.6%.
The Leader of the Opposition asks whether we will tax or borrow to pay for the 2.5%. The answer is no, which is why I have today set out precisely how we will pay for it, pound for pound. That has meant a difficult decision on overseas development—a very difficult decision, and not one that I wanted or am happy to take. But it is important that we explain where the money will come from in terms and today. I was only ever going to come to the House with a plan that had a timeline and a percentage in it, and an answer to the question, “How will you pay for it?” I would not have come to the House with a fanciful plan.
The Leader of the Opposition says that they had a plan—[Interruption.] She says, “Of course we did.” I have my views on that, but the Institute for Government said that the Conservatives’ pledge of 2.5% by 2030 did “not add up” and was “not a serious plan.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies called it “misleading and opaque”. I am not giving my view; I am giving the view of other bodies on the plan that the Conservatives put forward. They said that they would fund it by cutting the civil service, and then increased the civil service by 13,000. I am not prepared to operate in that way, which is why we have taken the difficult decision on overseas development today, to be absolutely clear on where the money is coming from.
In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s final point on the approach that we take here and whether there is a difference between us, I hope not. What I have set out was NATO-first, as the bedrock of our security. I hope that is common ground, whatever we may call our respective positions. I also set out that we must not choose between the US and our European allies. That is what I fundamentally believe, and I will resist that choice. I hope that is common ground between us, notwithstanding the language that she uses, because it is important, not for exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes, but for the future defence and security of our country and of Europe.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement on defence and security, because times are a-changing and we must all recognise that these are pivotal moments not just for our nation’s security but for our Ukrainian friends, whom we must wholeheartedly support in their fight for survival.
In my various interactions with key stakeholders in my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I have begun to realise that there is considerable consternation among our European allies about whether long-established and hard-earned alliances—rather than a short-term transactional approach—can still be relied on to secure lasting peace. Also, given the proposed reduction in the American presence on our continent, people are looking for leadership. I feel that this is our time to step forward as a nation and take the lead on defence and security matters on our continent.
Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convey to President Trump and our American allies the anxieties of our European allies and the need to strengthen our transatlantic NATO alliance at this perilous time for Europe, and does he agree that he can be the person to take the lead on defence and security matters in Europe, coalescing with our NATO allies?
Mr Speaker
Order. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I know he has a lot to say, but I have a lot of Members to get in, including other party leaders.
The Prime Minister
I do agree that our alliances are important, and that is why NATO is the bedrock of our approach. It has been for many, many years and will continue to be. I do accept that European allies and the UK have to step up and do more. In our heart of hearts, I think across this House we have known that this moment was coming for the last three years. We have put that plan before the House, and of course, I will do everything I can to strengthen the alliance and the relationship between the US and the UK. It is a special relationship. It is a strong relationship. I want it to go from strength to strength.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Three years ago, Putin began his brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as we watched Russian missiles rain down on Ukrainian cities, we feared he might have struck a decisive blow to Ukraine and its sovereignty, yet Putin underestimated the strength of the ideals we share with our Ukrainian friends of democracy, truth and liberty. He underestimated the courage and grit of Ukrainian soldiers, who have spent three years heroically resisting Putin’s war machine.
Britain stood together with our allies in support of Ukraine, and families up and down the country opened their doors wide for Ukrainian refugees, because we know that Ukraine’s fight for democracy and liberty is our fight, too. In this House, we stood strong together, and yet three years on, the future of Ukraine and security in Europe seems even more perilous. Then, Washington was clearly on our side, but now, the United States is voting with Russia, Belarus and North Korea in the United Nations. President Trump labels President Zelensky a “dictator”, but not Vladimir Putin.
After the second world war, Britain came together with allies around the world to establish NATO and, with America, agreed to underwrite security on this continent, recognising that a threat to the security of one nation was a threat to the security of all nations. The events of the past few days are clear: that era is over. We may be watching before our very eyes the betrayal of our Ukrainian allies by America, and with it, the potential betrayal of Europe and of Britain, too. We must respond. Now it is up to the United Kingdom to lead in Europe. As a nation, we must seize this moment.
It is for our national interest that Liberal Democrats have supported the Prime Minister’s proposals on Ukraine, including British troops joining a reassurance mission in Ukraine if a just settlement is reached. That is why we strongly support the Prime Minister raising defence spending to 2.5%, preferably using seized Russian assets to pay for extra defence support for Ukraine. We will scrutinise all aspects of the Government’s spending plans carefully, but I hope that moving at pace to 2.5% means that Ministers will shortly announce the reversal of the Conservatives’ short-sighted cut of 10,000 troops from our armed forces.
The Prime Minister is right: we must go further, so will he initiate talks between all parties in this House to establish the vital consensus needed to take us to spending 3% of GDP on defence as soon as possible? The Prime Minister will know that for months, we Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to seize frozen Russian assets, which amount to over £20 billion, and repurpose those funds for Ukraine’s defence. Will he take immediate steps to gather European leaders and begin the seizure of Russian assets, so that we can support Ukraine no matter what America does? Will he, on his trip to Washington, try to persuade President Trump to do the same—to make Russia pay?
The Prime Minister will know that the whole country will be willing him on, hoping that he might be able to persuade Donald Trump to change his mind on Ukraine. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches think he is right to try, but should that not work, will he be clear where the United Kingdom then stands? Will he make it clear that, if absolutely necessary, it will be with Ukraine and our European allies, not Putin and Trump?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support on Ukraine; it has been steadfast, and it has been across this House. For the same reasons that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition, that is important not just here but to those in Ukraine.
We do need to step up and lead in Europe—we have been saying that for a very long time. All European countries need to do more, and now is the moment to do so, but we need to do that together with the US, because what is needed more than anything is a lasting peace. A ceasefire that simply gives Putin the chance to regroup and to go again is in nobody’s interest. A lasting peace means that we must talk about issues such as security guarantees. We are prepared to play our part, as I have indicated, but I have also indicated that to be a security guarantee, it requires a US backstop—US support for that security guarantee. That is at the heart of the case I have been making for some time.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, of the assets that have been seized already, the interest on those of £3 billion has already been committed to Ukraine, and we are working with our European allies to see what more can be done in relation to the funding that will be necessary. Stepping up means stepping up on capability, on co-ordination and on funding, which is what we have done today with this statement.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this strong commitment to defence spending. I welcome as well the work being done with the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary on ensuring that we get as much value as we can for each pound spent on delivering capability. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to the parliamentary scrutiny of that spending, including on the most sensitive areas?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Can I say to those who were late, please do not embarrass the Chair by standing?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Almost on that point, Mr Speaker, what an abdication of responsibility and duty it is that not a single member of the Reform party is able to ask a question of the Prime Minister this afternoon on these precious issues of defence and security. They are treated with a very different level of seriousness by Members on the Conservative and Government Benches.
Many have asked the Prime Minister about the use of Russian frozen assets. Anybody who has studied the issue with regard to Libya will know just how complicated international law and convention has made the defrosting of frozen assets so that they can be put to proper use. In his discussions in Washington and with the other European leaders, can the Prime Minister press for urgent, collaborative and international reform of those rules, so that those frozen assets can be used to help the Ukrainians and their military to defeat Russian aggression?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
I think the right hon. Gentleman has been asleep at the wheel since the election—not just when he was in government. Our Government have brought in the Regulatory Innovation Office, which is now up and running and piloting four areas to get innovation through the regulatory landscape without delay. Our Government have brought in the gov.uk app, which will be delivered in June, as well as the digital wallet and the digital driving licence, and a suite of productivity services are already being deployed in the public sector. His Government did none of those things. We are doing them now.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Government’s determination to embrace AI to transform public services and pull through procurement opportunities for British businesses is very welcome, but many public service users and others may have been concerned by the Government’s failure to sign the Paris AI summit declaration, which sought to ensure that AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy. A Government spokesperson said that there were concerns about progress on global governance and national security. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on that?
Peter Kyle
As always, I am grateful for the exchanges that the hon. Gentleman and I have in this House, which are always constructive. That issue is part of the legacy that we have inherited from the failed Tory Government of over 14 years, but I assure him that the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which has its Second Reading today, will force different parts of the NHS to finally start communicating with themselves and using interoperable data in the interests of patients.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s plans to improve Government services depend on the cloud. In the light of the Competition and Markets Authority decision to assess whether Amazon Web Services and Microsoft should be designated as having strategic market status in cloud service provision, what decisions has he made regarding the approach to current and future Government procurement of cloud services?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Sussex Bookshop is a new bookshop that opened in Chichester city centre in December; it is now February and it is unable to connect to any sort of internet provision, because Openreach is reporting that there are no extra connections for the whole city centre. Does the Minister agree that reliable internet access is essential, especially for small businesses that have to operate both on the high street and on an online platform? What steps is she taking to ensure that those businesses have access now, not in 2030?
Feryal Clark
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. Businesses across the country should be able to connect, especially in this day and age. If the business in her constituency continues to experience problems, my hon. Friend the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms will be happy to meet her to discuss this issue further.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Digital services for small businesses are important across the country—north-east, south-east or wherever you are, Mr Speaker. The latest data shows, however, that only around 15% of UK small and medium-sized enterprises use AI, which is well behind other countries, such as Denmark and Finland. Will the Minister commit to publishing a detailed adoption road map that covers, for example, essential upskilling, data centre capacity and tech vouchers, so that small businesses can deploy AI without being locked out by cost and complexity?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question and for the leadership that he has shown in his community in Southport during extremely difficult times. The Online Safety Act 2023 applies to all users and includes measures to tackle misinformation peddled by foreign states. He has a specific challenge in his community, and I am very willing to meet him and members of his community to hear directly of the impact that these issues have had.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Conservatives secured a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca to expand its Merseyside vaccine factory. When the Chancellor wrecked the deal, AstraZeneca tried to save it by increasing that investment to over £500 million. Why did Labour still walk away, handing jobs and investment to our competitors?
The Prime Minister
Our plan for change delivers the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation through our Employment Rights Bill, ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and the scandal of fire and rehire and expanding statutory sick pay to 1.3 million employees. Of course, that is on top of the pay rise for 3 million of the lowest paid. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition might support the protection of day one employment rights, given where she is going, but she thinks maternity pay is excessive. Our plan is pro-worker and pro-growth.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
The Conservative Government established the Ukraine family scheme. In total, more than 200,000 Ukrainians—mostly women, children and the elderly—have found sanctuary in the UK from Putin’s war. However, a family of six from Gaza have applied to live in Britain using this scheme, and a judge has now ruled in their favour. That is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong, and cannot be allowed to stand. Are the Government planning to appeal on any points of law, and, if so, which ones?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue that is obviously of real concern to businesses in her constituency. We expect landlords to meet their obligations to make buildings safe, and we support robust enforcement action from the regulators if they fail to do so. I will ensure that my hon. Friend secures a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss what steps can be taken in this particular case to support the businesses on which her constituents rely.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Eighty years ago this week, the allies began a pincer movement against German forces between the Ruhr and the Rhine. British and Canadian troops attacked from the north, Americans from the south. British, Canadian and American soldiers were fighting shoulder to shoulder to defeat fascists. Eighty years on, President Trump seems to have forgotten all that. His tariffs against steel and aluminium will hit Canada the hardest, but they will also hit jobs and the cost of living in our country. In reminding President Trump who America’s true and long-standing friends and allies really are, will the Prime Minister also prepare a plan for tariffs in return, starting with tariffs on American electric cars?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Dewhirst, I am sure you do not want to be leaving today—it is not the best day for it.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
As a graduate of the Croydon Youth Philharmonic Orchestra, the Prime Minister will know that youth services can broaden a young person’s horizons beyond what they could ever imagine. With national spending on youth services having declined 73% since 2010, will the Prime Minister outline how this Government will bring youth services back into our communities, will he look at giving them the statutory protections they deserve and will he visit Croydon East to see at first hand the vital role youth services play in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising devolution, which will see her constituents in Sussex get meaningful control over local priorities. The devolution priority programme will see a wave of mayors elected next year, including in Sussex. I believe that those with skin in the game make the best decisions about their communities.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be well aware of the global vaccination fund, Gavi. One of the United Kingdom’s great success stories, it has vaccinated from deadly diseases more than a billion children under five, it presents real value for money to British taxpayers and more than 80% of our constituents support it. Will he give the House an undertaking that Britain will continue that leadership and make a decisive pledge at next month’s replenishment conference?
US Steel Import Tariffs
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alexander
Well, well—let me try to answer the various questions that the shadow Minister asks. First, on the big, beautiful deal that the Conservatives contemplated, I simply observe that that was one of a whole number of trade deals that they boast about but abjectly failed to deliver.
The hon. Lady described this as a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry. Frankly, we saw the UK steel industry suffer from a degree of neglect for many years under the previous Government. That is why we are the first Government in many years to set out a comprehensive steel strategy, including a commitment of £2.5 billion towards the future of the steel industry. We will take no lectures from Conservative Front Benchers on the UK steel industry.
On the hon. Lady’s substantive question about the degree of contact that we have had with the US trade representative, it may have eluded her attention that we do not yet have a confirmed US trade representative. We anticipate that Jamieson Greer will be confirmed by the US Senate in the next couple of weeks. Similarly, she might suggest that it is important for the Secretary of State to meet Howard Lutnick, the US Secretary of Commerce, but, alas, I must inform her that Howard Lutnick has not yet been confirmed. We stand ready to engage with the incoming Administration—be that with the USTR or the Secretary of Commerce—once we are in a position to do so.
In terms of the economic analysis, I hope the hon. Lady will understand, given how sensitive these issues are as we anticipate the further steps to be taken by the Trump Administration, that it would not be an altogether wise negotiating strategy to share the detail of the internal UK analysis of the potential effects of tariffs, which, I remind the House, are not due to be imposed until 12 March.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
What is essential now is that this does not escalate. Widespread duties on UK exports to the US would be devastating for economic growth, bad for inflation and bad for interest rates. The whole House ought to wish His Majesty’s new ambassador, Lord Mandelson, the very best of luck in the conduct of his new tasks in Washington. What flexibility will the Minister allow on increasing funding to UK steelmakers through the steel strategy if they confirm that that is essential to maintain a sovereign capability in this country?
Mr Alexander
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous words about the incoming UK ambassador to Washington, who—notwithstanding his commitment at the weekend to fly under the radar—is already in post and is making necessary calls. He is but one of the key interlocutors we have established with the incoming Administration, and—reflecting the earlier questions that we were asked—we are already actively engaged with the US Administration.
More broadly on the approach to the UK steel industry, my friend and colleague the Minister of State for Industry is this afternoon meeting representatives of the steelmaking trade unions and representatives of the principal steel companies in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State will further that dialogue in the next 24 hours. There has already been outreach to the UK Steel trade body. In relation to the commitment for the steel strategy that we are due to unveil in the spring, I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is already a very active dialogue that will incorporate issues related not just to potential tariffs but to the risks of trade diversion, and to the substantive issues that he raises.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Donald Trump’s tariffs will cause much uncertainty across the world, not least for those working in our great British steel industry. Tariffs are not just bad news for UK steel producers; they would have a tangible effect on people’s lives, from lower economic growth to higher inflation. It is not likely to end with steel, so we may well be caught up in America’s economic vandalism. Will the Minister set out how US tariffs may affect the UK economy and what preparations are being made as a result, and does he agree that British jobs are on the line and that businesses and workers want to see the Government stand up for them?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning the excellent organisations in her constituency and the work that they do to support survivors. We are investing more in provision, but I understand her point about the need for security of long-term funding, and we will consider that as part of our VAWG strategy.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
We welcome the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, but a recent report from the National Audit Office makes grim reading, stating that one in 12 women are victims of violence every year and that there were more than 2 million victims in the year up to June 2024. It also suggests while there is a welcome focus on victims, we are not doing enough in terms of prevention. How will the Minister ensure that this mission will focus on education and prevention in schools as well as seeking to support every survivor, and is she speaking to the Scottish Government about co-ordination?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his passion about apprenticeships, which we on this side of the House absolutely share. I am delighted that next week is National Apprenticeship Week. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that more girls see a future for themselves in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Again, that will be great for them and great for our economy.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On Monday, a judge in an employment tribunal brought by the GMB union ruled that predominantly female Asda employees on the shop floor and predominantly male employees working in Asda’s warehouses—completely different roles with different conditions—were carrying out work of equal value. The ruling, which is similar to that which bankrupted Birmingham city council, could cost Asda £1.2 billion in back pay and an annual wage bill increase of £400 million—an even bigger blow than the additional £100 million increase in the company’s wage bill as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget. Does the Minister agree that private companies should be free to set different wages for completely different jobs, irrespective of the gender balance in those roles, without being overruled by the courts? [Interruption.]
Jess Phillips
I join my hon. Friend in saying what amazing and vital work is being done by people like the Tamworth street angels. It is unacceptable that women feel unsafe when they are out and about, and this Government seek not only to change legislation—on spiking, for example—to make sure our laws are right, but to make sure that, on the ground, we are training people in pubs, clubs, bars and across our night-time economy. We can write words on goatskin, but when the rubber hits the road in places like Tamworth, we need people like the street angels to make sure it actually means something.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Three weeks ago, the Government announced five local inquiries into rape gangs, which crucially cannot compel witnesses to give evidence. We still do not know where all the inquiries will be, and we do not know how the towns will be chosen.
As Charlie Peters from GB News originally reported, grooming gangs are suspected to have operated in 50 towns. Does the Minister recognise that the failure to announce a meaningful national statutory inquiry means that women and girls from across the country, who are not from the five selected towns, will be denied justice and a fair hearing? If the victims want a national statutory inquiry, why doesn’t the Minister?
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend in commending that work. I know the Tyne Valley line very well; it is in a beautiful part of the country. It is important that the rail network is accessible for all passengers, and that is at the heart of our approach. I will ensure Ministers at the Department for Transport look into the case that he raises and provide more information about the actions that are being taken for his constituents.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
The call for evidence started last year by the Leader of the Opposition, when she was Minister for Women and Equalities, asked the public to share examples of bad guidance on single-sex spaces and services. This Labour Government initially shared just 42 responses—just 1% of the responses—with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is the body that gives advice to institutions on equality in the law. Why did the Government rule out 99% of the public responses? That is a massive betrayal of Labour’s manifesto commitment to protect single-sex spaces. The public rightly deserve to have every single one of over 3,000 submissions considered properly by the EHRC.
Mr Speaker
Order. These are topical questions—they need to be short and punchy, which this answer will be. Come on.
Bridget Phillipson
The previous Government’s scope was narrow. We are taking action to give all providers the assurances that they need that single-sex spaces can be provided. I have met representatives from the EHRC to discuss that point and I have written to the EHRC about it. I will take no lectures from the Conservatives on single-sex spaces, when the use of mixed-sex hospital wards increased on their watch.
Anneliese Dodds
The Government’s position on relations with the MCB has not changed.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is the beginning of LGBT History Month. Trans people across the UK are struggling to access healthcare and finding it difficult to go about their lives with dignity. As their identity comes under constant attack from powerful people across the world, progress cannot be taken for granted. Will the Minister reconfirm the Government’s commitment to the entire LGBTQ+ community and outline what steps are being taken to engage with LGBT people in the UK? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please do not do that, because I have to get—[Interruption.] No, it is no use shrugging your shoulders at me. I have to get all the Members in. If you do not want other colleagues to get in, please tell them. I do.
Bridget Phillipson
We remain steadfast in our support for all LGBT people. It is essential that they are safe, included and protected from discrimination.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the Conservative party left our railways in a terrible state. Two years of strikes cost our economy £850 million in lost revenue. You cannot grow the economy if you cannot run the railways. We will launch Great British Railways to focus relentlessly on passengers and to clamp down on delays and cancellations. I am pleased that Northern has announced the largest ever investment in its fleet to deliver 450 new trains, meaning more comfortable and reliable journeys for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
When Labour negotiates, our country loses. Yesterday, we heard that the Government offered £18 billion for Mauritius to take our territory in the Chagos islands. This is money that belongs to our children and their children. This is an immoral surrender, so that north London lawyers can boast at their dinner parties.
When Labour negotiates, we all lose. Sometimes, it does not even bother to negotiate. Why did the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero withdraw Government lawyers from defending the case against the eco-nutters who want to obstruct the Rosebank oil and gas field?
The Prime Minister
The NHS is the lifeblood of our country, and that is why we invested £25 billion at the Budget—a record amount—and are making it fit for the future through our plan for change. What a contrast with Reform, whose leader has said that those who can afford to pay should pay for healthcare. Under Labour, the NHS will always be free at the point at use for anyone who needs it.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Can I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible murder of the 15-year-old in Sheffield and say that we support any effective action against knife crime that the Government propose?
At his first Prime Minister’s questions, I told the Prime Minister about my constituent Andrea. A full-time carer for her mother, Andrea is one of thousands of carers caught up in the carer’s allowance scandal, hounded by the Department for Work and Pensions for repayments. The Prime Minister accepted that there was a problem and set up an independent review, and we welcome that. But two months after the announcement of the review, Andrea received a letter summoning her to a tribunal next week. Her mother’s health has been deteriorating—she has had to go into a care home—and this is the last thing Andrea needs. Will the Prime Minister step in and do the right thing and cancel Andrea’s tribunal and all proceedings against carers like Andrea, at least until the review is concluded?
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to get to get this question over with, don’t you? All you are doing is ensuring that it goes on for ever. Quick question, please.
Nigel Farage
I would like to ask the Prime Minister for some advice. What do I say to the 25,000 constituents in Clacton—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Either get on with it—[Interruption.] Order. We cannot both be standing, Mr Farage. I need a quick question and then I can get you the answer. Come on.
Nigel Farage
What do I say to the 25,000 constituents in Clacton—including 99-year-old Jim O’Dwyer, who flew a full set of missions on Lancaster bombers as tail-end Charlie—who are losing their winter fuel allowance and feeling the pinch, while at the same time we are prepared to give away a military base and pay £18 billion for the privilege of doing so?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member has to shout because the SNP Members are so far away at the back and there are so few of them that otherwise they would not be heard.
Storm Éowyn
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to Storm Éowyn.
On Thursday of last week, the Met Office issued two red weather warnings for Storm Éowyn, meaning there was danger to life across Northern Ireland and central and southern Scotland. As a result, and in consultation with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, I approved a decision to issue an emergency mobile phone alert containing information about the weather warnings and guidance on how to stay as safe as possible to approximately 4.5 million people across Northern Ireland and Scotland. This was the largest real-life use of the emergency alert system to date.
On Friday morning, Storm Éowyn brought extremely strong winds to different parts of the UK, with gusts exceeding 92 mph in Northern Ireland. Initial observations from the Met Office say it was “probably the strongest storm” to hit the UK in at least 10 years and the most severe storm for Northern Ireland since 1998. Very sadly, we have had reports so far of two deaths during the storm—a young man in Scotland and a young man in the Republic of Ireland. Our thoughts are with and our condolences go to their families.
The storm caused widespread property damage and significant disruption to transport and power supplies, particularly in Northern Ireland and Scotland. At its peak, 285,000 properties in Northern Ireland—that is about a quarter of the population—and around 290,000 properties in Scotland lost power. More than 95% of the customers in Scotland have had their power restored. Work is continuing to bring that number down. In England and Wales, around 325,000 properties lost supply, and the vast majority have been reconnected.
As a result of the power outages, disruption to telecoms was reported by mobile phone operators in the areas affected. Significant impacts were also felt across the rail and road networks, with train services cancelled, and Edinburgh airport and both Belfast airports suspending operations on Friday. Also on Friday, all schools in Northern Ireland were closed, as were almost 90% of Scotland’s schools, and all colleges and universities. In England, there was also a smaller number of school closures. As a result of the storm, around 3,000 properties in Northern Ireland are experiencing disruption to water supplies, and supplies of bottled water are en route to Northern Ireland.
I want to thank the emergency services, the engineers and others who have worked tirelessly and with great courage in the face of extremely difficult weather conditions. They put in a huge effort to provide support to those who have needed it to restore power, repair damage and clear roads and railways. I know the whole House will join me in thanking them for their work.
The Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have led the response efforts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and there has been good co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Governments over the past few days. We remain in regular contact to assess the situation and see what more needs to be done. On Saturday, the Prime Minister spoke to the Scottish First Minister and the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister to offer any support that the UK Government could provide. Today, the Prime Minister has also spoken to the Taoiseach and discussed the latest situation in the Republic of Ireland.
Over the weekend, I chaired a ministerial Cobra meeting with relevant Cabinet colleagues as well as the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. I reiterated the Prime Minister’s offer of assistance, and we discussed the practical support that the UK Government could provide. Under industry arrangements, electricity network operators have facilitated mutual aid, and 102 engineers with equipment have travelled to Northern Ireland to support power restoration. Northern Ireland has requested specific mutual aid from Great Britain in the form not only of engineers, but of helicopters, generators and batteries, as well as equipment more widely, including chainsaws and vehicles.
UK Government Departments are moving as quickly as they can to meet these requests. We believe the majority of requests can be met through either the usual mutual aid channels or, in some cases, commercial arrangements with industry. The Cobra unit in my Department, which has met twice over the weekend at official level and once again this morning, is continuing to co-ordinate the support to ensure it is provided as swiftly as possible.
I have met Cobra officials several times to review the situation and ensure that we are doing all we can to support those affected. The message has been simple: to get as much help as quickly as possible to where it is needed. The situation on the ground is improving, but it is estimated that it could be up to 10 days before everyone is reconnected—a long time. This is very serious and we are working as hard as we can to accelerate the restoration of power.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is today in Northern Ireland, where he has met the Minister for Infrastructure to discuss recovery, and residents impacted by the storm. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks) is in Scotland this afternoon, meeting staff who are working on reconnections. Since Friday, around 220,000 properties in Northern Ireland, and 600,000 across Great Britain, have had their power restored. Welfare provisions have been provided to households without power, travel disruption has eased, most schools in Northern Ireland have reopened today, and we hope that the majority of the remainder will reopen tomorrow.
However, the situation remains serious and there is a need for ongoing help. In Northern Ireland an estimated 60,000 properties are still without power, as are around 7,500 in Scotland. Northern Ireland electricity networks expect to restore power to the vast majority of homes and businesses over the coming days, and we will continue to provide additional support that may be needed to accelerate that reconnection for as many households as possible.
Storm Éowyn has now moved away from the UK, but another storm, which the Spanish Met Office has named Storm Herminia, has brought heavy bands of rain to south-west England and Wales. A number of properties have been flooded, and 35,000 properties lost power, although the majority of those have now had it restored. We expect the impact of this storm to be significantly less than that of Storm Éowyn.
I hope this statement underscores the seriousness and urgency with which the Government are working to address the destruction that Storm Éowyn has wrought. In the days ahead we will continue to work closely with our colleagues in the devolved Governments, particularly in Northern Ireland, which has been worst hit in this situation, to ensure that all households are reconnected as soon as possible, and that full support is provided to affected households in the meantime. I commend this statement to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman speaks a lot of common sense. Wherever people are in the UK, they want the freedom to go about their business—shopping, work or whatever it is—in peace. We believe that some of those measures, such as CCTV, are important. So too is community policing. I am very happy to have a positive and constructive dialogue with the Administration in Northern Ireland and all the devolved Governments on these issues. Powers in these areas are devolved, but we share a common interest in protecting the public and ensuring that our streets and communities are safe.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In recent weeks, in response to written parliamentary questions, the Cabinet Office has refused to commit to updating Parliament on the status of the targets in this plan; refused to publish information on the delivery board monitoring; refused to have an independent review and audit of the targets and to publish an annual cost analysis of them; refused to publish a risk register on meeting the targets; refused to publish an annual report; and refused to publish a public dashboard. At the same time, Ministers have been unable to explain how a series of targets in the plan will be measured, so will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain whether this a sign that his Department is being obstructive and evasive, or that the plan has not been thought through beyond the slogans?
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Ministers in this Department and in others have been generous in engaging with my repeated requests for engagement with Cheltenham’s cyber-security industry, where GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre are located. There is increasing evidence that having the private and public sectors co-located is important for our cyber-security sector. The Golden Valley development provides an opportunity to do that, and the Places for Growth scheme might give an opportunity for more public sector officials to be placed alongside one of our most influential cyber-clusters. Would the Minister be interested in having a meeting about that?
Pat McFadden
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for his relentlessness in raising those issues on behalf of his constituency. He is right to draw attention to the assets we have there—GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre—and I pay tribute to the officials working there. There is a benefit to clusters in people learning from one another and in being close by, and it all helps contribute to our efforts in this area.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Last year, the National Cyber Security Centre, located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), said that the Government were almost certain that Russian actors had attempted to interfere in the 2019 general election. We are clearly in a new era of politics. Trust in politics is at an all-time low; disinformation is on the rise; and following instances across the world of foreign interference in elections, it is essential that the Government make a plan to address this threat to democracy. It is vital that we take all possible steps to restore faith in politics to strengthen our political system, boost political engagement at home and protect our national democracy from external influences. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to safeguard the democratic processes of the United Kingdom from foreign interference?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not accept the binary choice that the hon. Gentleman presents. We want to increase trade and export all around the world—that is hugely important. As the Prime Minister said, we do not choose between allies; we look to deepen all our relationships. Of course, we welcome the positive and constructive tone from Commissioner Šefčovič. We are always looking for ways to reduce barriers to trade, but within our manifesto red lines, because we take a pragmatic view on where the national interest lies. We do not currently have any plans to join PEM, and we will not provide a running commentary on every comment that is made.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Yesterday in Davos, Mr Šefčovič suggested that the UK and the EU were talking about dynamic alignment. As the Paymaster General will be aware, that is, if true, a very significant step. Will he be clear with the House: is dynamic alignment on the table?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have to give the hon. Gentleman top marks for audacity. I do not know whether Conservative MPs have heard, but a week ago, the Leader of the Opposition gave her new year speech, and, as I am sure they know, we listened to it extremely carefully. Do they know what she said about previous EU-UK negotiations? She said that the Conservative Government were engaging in them
“before we had a plan for growth outside the EU… These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”
Why doesn’t the—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we are in danger—[Interruption.] I am not going to sit down, Minister. [Interruption.] Thank you. We have a lot of questions to get through. If you want to make a statement on that in future, I would welcome it.
Alex Burghart
I would welcome that, too, Mr Speaker, because the right hon. Gentleman was not answering my question—just as he did not answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), and just as his Department is not answering questions of any hue at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made clear. It comes to something when Mr Šefčovič is a better guide to what is going on than the British Government. If the Government are committed to dynamic alignment, that is a significant step, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, because it could bring the European Court of Justice back into having jurisdiction over the United Kingdom. So, for the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out the ECJ having jurisdiction over the UK in any regard in the future?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am astonished by the question, because the hon. Gentleman is also the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, and will know the role that the European Court of Justice plays in the Windsor framework. Turning to his question about the negotiations, we have set out our red lines in the manifesto, and have set out examples of things that we are seeking to negotiate—that is already there.
The Leader of the Opposition was apologising last week for the conduct of the Conservative party in its relationship with the EU. Why is the hon. Gentleman not starting with an apology, or did he just not get the memo from his leader?
Georgia Gould
I welcomed the conversation last week with my hon. Friend, who talked me through the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises to growth in Truro and Falmouth. A lot of small businesses I have spoken to say the same thing: it can be too complex and slow to bid for Government contracts, sometimes those contracts come out too late and sometimes they cannot get on the playing field. We have listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend and others have to say on these issues, and we will bring forward an NPPS that delivers for SMEs.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
I welcome the recent conversation with my hon. Friend on this important matter. The Government’s industrial strategy outlines the importance of manufacturing in the defence industry to economic growth and national security. The new national procurement policy statement will put growth at the heart of procurement and will align to our industrial strategy.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Given the news from Germany, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster update the House on the work the Cabinet Office is doing to prepare for the possibility of an outbreak of foot and mouth?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his question. Those of us of a certain age will remember the appalling consequences of the last serious outbreak of foot and mouth in the UK, more than 20 years ago. Let me say very clearly from this Dispatch Box that we are treating this with the utmost seriousness. I met with Cobra officials yesterday and have asked for several briefings since the outbreak in Germany, and my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at a ministerial and official level are taking this very seriously as well. We know the threat that such an outbreak would pose to our farming communities, and we want to work with farmers and do everything we possibly can to protect them from it. So far, there has been no outbreak in the UK, but we will—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very important subject; I totally agree. The trouble is, in topicals, I have to get a lot of Members in. As this subject is so important, I would always welcome a statement on Monday.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Could he assure me that he is speaking to interested parties in Northern Ireland? Given that Northern Ireland is so closely connected to Ireland, which is part of the EU, farmers there are consequently very concerned that they may be affected by any spread of the disease. Will he therefore assure me that he is undertaking that work?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
We have reset the relationship with the Scottish Government. I think I spend more time with the Deputy First Minister than the hon. Gentleman does. I suspect he should spend more time with those on his own side discussing issues of interest to the Scottish people. We are determined to deliver, and we will do that in partnership. That is what resetting the relationship is all about.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
May I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for helping to secure £14 million of levelling up funds for the area of Drumchapel in my constituency of Glasgow West? Does he agree that given the record settlement that the Scottish Government have received from the UK Government, it is about time that they went ahead and sorted out the problems of under-provision and overcrowding in Drumchapel health centre?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Opposition Members have told us about how they want to see the benefits of the Budget, but they are not prepared to support any of the tax-raising measures in it. This Budget secured billions for Scotland, but the SNP voted against that. It delivered a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots, but the SNP voted against that. It ended Tory austerity, and the SNP voted against that.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
May I associate myself and the Official Opposition with the Secretary of State’s comments regarding Denis Law, a proud son of Aberdeen who never forgot his home town? Indeed, his legacy lives on through the Denis Law Trust, which does such good work with young people in and around the city.
This Saturday, the National Farmers Union of Scotland is planning a national day of action in protest at the pernicious, ill thought through and destructive changes to agricultural property relief and its threat to the future of family farms in Scotland. I will be attending the local rally in Aberdeenshire to show my and my party’s support of our farmers. I notice that the Edinburgh rally is taking place but a few miles from the Secretary of State’s own constituency in Ingliston. Does the Minister know whether he will be attending the rally?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in ongoing discussions with the National Farmers Union of Scotland. As I have said, I am proactively attending its conference next month. I am slightly surprised to hear the shadow Secretary of State talking about the changes in the Budget and not welcoming their announcement or, indeed, their implications, such as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD both predicting that Britain will be Europe’s fastest-growing economy in the coming years. The UK is the only G7 economy, apart from the US, to have had its growth forecast upgraded by the IMF for this year. It has also gone ahead of Germany, China and India to become the second most attractive company for global investment, trailing only the US, according to PwC’s annual survey. If he wants to talk about—
Andrew Bowie
Of course we do not agree with the policy in the Budget; the policy is purely wrong. Farmers were not consulted on it. Indeed, they were misled by the Labour party when they were told that this would not happen. It will lead to the demise of the family farm and undermine our food security, as farmers will simply stop farming. The concern, worry and fear that these changes have wrought on Scotland’s farmers are real and are on these Ministers and their Government. If the Secretary of State will not attend the rally this weekend, will he and the Minister at least use their position as Scotland’s man and woman at the Cabinet table to urge their colleagues to do as the NFU asked, which is to stop, reset, reflect, properly engage and consult on an alternative approach to stop this change?
Ian Murray
It is a very good question, because our clean power by 2030 mission will ensure that the Government can deliver that. GB Energy has been set up to look at supply chains and all the other issues around how we do so. I hope that GB Energy will be able to look at some of those issues in the round, but the key thing is to ensure that we have the supply chain infrastructure to be able to deliver that mission.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can Members who are just roaming around the Chamber remember that there are other people here and have a little more courtesy?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
If the Grangemouth refinery closes in 2025 and the recommendations of Project Willow will not be ready for years to come, thousands of jobs will be lost—the very definition of an unjust transition. How can the Government possibly claim to have a credible industrial strategy for Scotland if they allow that to happen?
Ian Murray
The closure of the Grangemouth refinery is regrettable. My hon. Friend needs to reflect on the fact that the previous Government and the Scottish Government had 32 years combined to do something about Grangemouth and did not lift a finger. Since we came into government in July, we have got the £100 million Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal over the line and delivered some short-term help for the workers at Grangemouth. We continue to work with the company and the trade unions on the Grangemouth refinery. We look forward to Project Willow coming to fruition this month, and the Government are fully committed to ensuring that we see that through.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Denis Law, whom I had the pleasure of interviewing more than once in my previous career.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to energy security as well as to green energy and net zero. This week, it has been reported that the Scottish Government could fund up to £60 million to both Mingyang, to build a wind turbine factory in the highlands, and Orient Cable to provide the undersea cables and connections for offshore wind. Given that those are both Chinese-owned companies, have the UK Government and the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Scottish Government to ensure that there are mitigating steps, such as ensuring local control and not using cellular modules, and have the security services been consulted?
Ian Murray
GB Energy is there, with the national wealth fund, to deliver that just transition in clean power by 2030. Oil and gas in the North sea will be here for decades to come, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to work with us to deliver that just transition, rather than scaremongering the workers of the north-east.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Despite mighty work by Conservative Members of the other place, sadly the Great British Energy Bill continues to make progress through the House of Lords. To remind you, Mr Speaker, the chairman of Great British Energy is based in Manchester but leading a company headquartered in Aberdeen. In Committee in October it was claimed that GB Energy would directly employ 1,000 people; by November, that had fallen to 300 people. What is the figure, what are those jobs, where will they be based and what on earth will GB Energy actually do?
Kirsty McNeill
I appreciate that campaigners are disappointed, but the hon. Lady has got herself in a bit of a fankle and is eliding two separate issues: a decision about the legality of the changes and the question of compensation. The ombudsman’s findings showed that the vast majority of WASPI women knew that the state pension age was changing. It is therefore difficult to justify up to £10 billion for a compensation scheme and conclude that that is a fair, proportionate and good value-for-money use of public funds.
Mr Speaker
Will Members please look at where the questions are coming from? Not doing so is disrespectful and not the way we should be carrying on. I am talking about senior Members who should know better. Here is a good example of a new Member—I call Ann Davies.
Ann Davies
Thank you, Mr Llefarydd. In 2021, the then Secretary of State called for a vote on redress for 1950s-born women, urging the UK Government to get on the front foot and offer serious compensation to those affected, but women in Scotland and Wales have seen the same broken promises from Labour. The now First Minister of Wales pledged in 2018 that a Labour Government would right that injustice. With the Secretary of State, the Welsh First Minister and Labour politicians across these isles turning their backs on 1950s women in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere, why should those women ever again believe a word they say?
The Prime Minister
We will do whatever it takes to protect farmers from the risk posed by foot and mouth. That is why we acted swiftly to ban imports of cattle, pigs and sheep and their products from Germany, to protect farmers. We will not hesitate to restrict imports from additional countries if the disease spreads, and we will keep the situation under close and careful review.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to welcome the release of hostages, including Emily Damari, from barbaric captivity? I also know that the thoughts of many will be with the victims of the Southport killings. There are important questions to answer, and I will return to those after the case is concluded.
Between 2009 and 2022 the OECD found that children in England rose up global league tables in maths, reading and science. Conservative Government action means that English schools now top the western world at maths and reading, but the Prime Minister’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will be voted on in Committee this week, reverses the improvements that made that happen. The Bill is an act of vandalism. It is wrecking a cross-party consensus that lasted for decades. Why does the Prime Minister think that so many school leaders are criticising the Bill?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which I know he has campaigned on for a very long time. We are investing a record £25 billion in the NHS as part of our plan for change. Building an NHS fit for the future means that places like Redditch will see lower waiting lists and services that reflect needs. While responsibility over service rests with the appropriate NHS commissioner, I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I echo the Prime Minister’s opening remarks about the Southport killings and Holocaust Memorial Day, and I particularly join him in expressing our immense relief at the release of Emily Damari and in celebrating that she is back with her mum Mandy and the rest of her family. Let us hope that all the hostages are released as soon as possible, and that the ceasefire turns into a lasting peace.
Last week, I urged the Prime Minister to speed up the social care commission, to implement the changes that people need this year. The very next day, it was announced that the chair of the social care commission was also going to chair another important inquiry, into grooming gangs. The Prime Minister said that the job of chairing the commission is so enormous that it cannot be completed within three years, yet he also said the chair of that commission, Baroness Casey, has enough free time over the next few months to chair another inquiry. How can both those things be true?
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect better from those on the Front Bench, Mr Philp, and I am sure you are going to show better.
The Prime Minister
He was Liz Truss’s right-hand man, so we wouldn’t expect anything else.
The IPA’s verdict on the previous Government’s plan was that there were “major issues”—[Interruption.] This is the Conservatives’ record; they should not be chuckling. The verdict was that there were “major issues” with the definition, schedule, budget, quality and delivery. It was a fiction—always was.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady raises an important point about some of the differences in pensions. I am more than happy to pick that up with the relevant Minister to ensure that she receives a full response.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. Here’s to festive tipples in our locals, but it is certainly not a cheery Christmas for the Women Against State Pension Inequality, whom Labour has betrayed.
Hospitality is at the heart of our economy, with a diverse workforce: 17% of the sector’s workers are disabled under the Equality Act 2010; 20% are from ethnic minority groups; and over 54% are women. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what conversations have taken place between her and the Chancellor on the chilling effect on future earnings of the Labour Government’s jobs tax and higher business rates, underpinned by £3.4 billion of increased costs according to UKHospitality, which will drive down future earnings?
Jess Phillips
As somebody who went into the Home Office and found a load of things that were said at this Dispatch Box dwindling and left undone for three years, I take umbrage. The Government will do exactly what we said we will do and will ban deepfakes in this Session. As a victim of it myself, I understand the importance.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
Violence against women and girls takes many forms—verbal, physical, emotional, financial—and at all ages, but one of the most insidious forms is online abuse. With technology developing faster than legislation can respond, the ways it is being used, such as deepfakes, are also developing faster than legislation can respond, and the use of generative AI to create fake intimate images leaves many women vulnerable. I know the Minister cares deeply about this, so can she tell us what steps the Government will take to ensure that it is tackled properly? Will she work with Cabinet colleagues to create a new online crime agency to deal with that threat?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and I will ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities has said that background should be no barrier to success, but what message does it send to our young people when they are told that there are some job opportunities they cannot apply for solely based on the colour of their skin? Equality in this country must mean equality of opportunity, not putting some people in society on a pedestal above others, so will the Minister write to all public bodies to make it crystal clear that the state should not be sanctioning race-based hiring policies?
Bridget Phillipson
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question, and I pay tribute to the work of Northamptonshire Domestic Abuse Service and everyone working across domestic violence and sexual abuse services this Christmas. I know from my own experience of working in such services over the Christmas period how busy it can be, but I want to send a message to all victims that support is always there when they need it, even at Christmas, and the police will always respond when called. Where there are serious concerns, people should know that they are not alone at Christmas, and that help and support is always available.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Turning a blind eye to the risks faced by vulnerable people in the name of inclusivity is anything but compassionate. We know that cousin marriage significantly increases the risk of birth defects and locks women into coercive relationships. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) has tabled sensible legislation to ban this practice. Why will the Government not support it?
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
My hon. Friend raises a good example of the kind of topic we need to work on across Government, and I was pleased to chair the first meeting of the cross-Government disability lead Ministers yesterday. The Department for Transport has consulted on this problem, which can be very serious for people with a sight impairment, and is considering the options for tackling it. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will let me know what he finds out in his walk around his constituency shortly.
The Prime Minister
Can I pay tribute to Ceri and Frances—it is a heartbreaking case—and commend them for their campaign on behalf of other families? I know that the Minister for Social Security and Disability met the family yesterday, but no parent should endure losing their child to cancer, particularly at such a young age. We are investing £1.5 billion for new surgical hubs and scanners, and £70 million for new radiotherapy machines, and we will set out our next steps on the children and young people cancer taskforce shortly.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Can I send my warmest wishes to our armed forces at home and overseas, to the emergency services, and to everyone who will be working over Christmas? Can I wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and all Members of this House a very merry Christmas?
For years, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet played politics with the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. The Deputy Prime Minister said the Conservatives were stealing their pensions. She promised to compensate them in full—another broken promise. Now, they admit that we were right all along. But let us ask about another group of pensioners whose trust was broken. Since the Chancellor cut winter fuel payments, how many extra people have applied for pension credit?
The Prime Minister
We have been driving take-up with the campaign for pension credit. It is important that everyone who is entitled to it claims that pension credit. The Leader of the Opposition should not claim as some great victory that the record of her Government was that people had not signed up. We are the ones with the campaign, and the Tories should be supporting it. Because of the triple lock, pensions will be going up by £470 next April. She has not answered the question. Her shadow Chancellor says that the triple lock is “unsustainable”, so she needs to explain how pensioners would be worse off under a Tory Government.
Mrs Badenoch
We protected the triple lock during all our time in government. Meanwhile, energy bills are increasing, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to cut them by £300. In Scotland, his party leader wants to restore the winter fuel payment. Across England, councils are scrabbling together funds for struggling pensioners. The tragic reality this Christmas is that pensioners will suffer and may even die as a result of this cruel policy. Did the Chancellor consider the impact on councils and on the NHS, or does she just not know what she is doing?
The Prime Minister
We are driving up productivity, prosperity and living standards. That is a pay rise for the 3 million lowest-paid—the Tories should welcome that—a pay rise for those working in the NHS, and better than expected wage growth just before Christmas. What unites all three is that they are delivered by Labour but opposed by the Tories.
The Prime Minister
I will do it now. A £22 billion black hole left by the Conservatives, record numbers on the waiting lists—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
A £22 billion black hole, record waiting lists in our NHS—Conservative Members should hang their heads in shame—and immigration completely out of control, with nearly a million net migration. The Leader of the Opposition was the cheerleader for all of that. She wants the truth—that is the truth. That is why the Conservatives are sitting on the Opposition Benches.
While Conservative Members carp from the sidelines, talking the country down, this Government are getting on with the job: record funding for the NHS; money for our trains, buses and, yes, potholes; pay rises for 3 million of the lowest-paid; wages growing faster than inflation; planning laws reform; and Great British Energy set up. We are only getting started. Next year we will continue to rebuild, no matter what the blockers opposite say.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Jim Callaghan was a giant of the Labour movement and a great public servant. He left school at 17 and served in our Royal Navy before becoming Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor and, of course, finally Prime Minister. I am sure that he, as a proud son of Portsmouth, would be honoured to be remembered in such a way. [Interruption.] Happy Christmas.
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just say to Mr Mayhew that I keep hearing you. I heard you the other week when you were sat to my side, and I am hearing you again over there. It not a good time to push your luck. I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in his praise and best wishes for our armed forces and emergency services, and I join others in wishing you, Mr Speaker, a happy Christmas, along with all the staff of the Commons and everyone across the House [Hon. Members: “Sing it!”] I will sing in a minute.
I have had the great joy of spending time recently with some amazing young people from the Bath Philharmonia young carers choir. They are a brilliant example of the power of music to make a difference in young people’s lives. One member, Caitlyn, has even developed a special new project to spread the joy of music to young people in our schools and communities. Will the Prime Minister meet Caitlyn to hear more about her exciting project, and will he work with us and others to support music in our schools and communities?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and thank him for raising the question of our troops in Estonia, who, as he says, will be there over Christmas without their families. They are right on the frontline, with a very clear sense of purpose, as part of our NATO contingent, and we thank them. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must continue to support Ukraine—that was the subject of our discussions in Estonia yesterday—and ensure that it is put in the strongest possible position, whether in negotiations or not. We must also make it absolutely clear that this conflict could be ended straight away if the aggressors, Russia, backed off.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The WASPI women fought one of the most sustained and passionate campaigns for justice that I can remember, year in year out, and we did promise them that we would give them justice. I understand the issue of the cost, but does the Prime Minister really understand how let down they feel today?
Storm Darragh
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point and talking about the impact on his constituents and those across the country. The Met Office warnings are based on judgments made by highly trained staff who have carefully collaborated to provide instructive advice to people, businesses, transport operators and emergency responders on a storm’s impact on customer disruption. In this particular situation, the emergency alert was sent to approximately 3 million people across Wales and the south-west on Friday 6 December. It reached the people who needed to be reached really effectively.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I applaud the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for asking this urgent question. He asked some very detailed questions about communication and connectivity that are vital for rural areas. Can the Minister commit to writing to him and to putting that letter in the Library? There is important information that needs to be put on the public record.
Storm Darragh has had and continues to have terrible impacts across the UK. Our thoughts are very much with the loved ones of those who tragically lost their lives in recent days, and with the people whose homes and businesses have been devastated and those who continue to feel the effects of the storm. We must not forget that for at-risk communities, the mental health consequences can remain long after the storms and floods have abated and the blue lights have left. The Opposition pay tribute to the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteer groups for their efforts to help people in these challenging and dangerous circumstances.
In the coming hours and days, the Government need to focus on quickly reconnecting those without power and giving help to those who have been driven out of their homes, on the repair and reopening of buildings and schools and on the process for insurance claims so that residents can return home as soon as possible. What conversations are being had across Government to ensure that all that happens?
What discussions did the Minister have with ministerial colleagues across Government and with the Environment Agency and the Met Office before the latest storm hit? The Government’s flood resilience taskforce was set up to improve flood preparedness. It has met once, and its next meeting is next year. Should it not be stood up more frequently and meet more regularly?
The previous Conservative Government committed a record £5.2 billion from 2019 to 2027 to provide significantly improved flood defences across the country. Will the new Labour Government continue that investment? The farm recovery fund, initiated by the previous Conservative Government to support farmers, is vital. Will this Government provide new money now, after recent storms like Bert and Darragh? Finally, can the Government confirm their ongoing commitment to the communities hit by these increasingly common extreme weather events?
Ms Oppong-Asare
Like my hon. Friend, I recognise the impact the storm has had on individuals. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government on the civil contingencies response structures in response to Storm Darragh, and have convened an all-Wales civil contingencies committee. Officials in the UK Government regularly engage with the Welsh Government on this matter, and ensure that local responders are working effectively. We will be looking to see what else we can learn from this situation.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), who asked an excellent question and raised this important issue today. My thoughts also are with those who tragically lost their lives this weekend and with their families, and with all the communities who have been so terribly affected by the storm. I have immense gratitude, as I am sure we all do, for our emergency services, utility companies staff and local communities, who have responded with such effectiveness and compassion.
We were affected in Westmorland, although not as badly as the constituents of many Welsh Members present. Last week was the ninth anniversary of Storm Desmond, which we remember and still bear the scars from, and we stand in solidarity with all those deeply affected right now.
The storm reminds us of our duty to protect homes, communities, farmland and businesses. In the Budget, the Government agreed to funding for flood defences up to March 2026, with the potential threat of reduced funding thereafter. Will the Minister take this opportunity to guarantee, as a minimum, the current level of funding for flood defences beyond March 2026?
So much farmland has been affected by the storm, yet farms are key to successful flood management, storing water and slowing the flow to protect villages and towns downstream, such as Appleby and Kendal in my constituency. Will the Minister now agree to increasing the environmental land management scheme budget to help our farmers be our first and best defence against flooding?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Government will expand eligibility for the farming recovery fund? Will they publish an up-to-date water management strategy to set out a plan for urgent maintenance and upgrades to flooding defences to protect homes, farmland and businesses at risk?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
We announced an extra £22 billion for the NHS over the next couple of years in the recent Budget. I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that reducing waiting times is at the heart of our missions, because current waiting times are bad for people’s health and bad for our economy.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to face the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box for what I believe is the first time. I am pleased to see three members of the Cabinet on the Front Bench—it is quite right that the Cabinet Office should be so well reflected.
The day after he entered Downing Street, the Prime Minister pledged to personally chair each mission delivery board to drive through change. We now hear that he is not chairing each mission delivery board. Why has the Prime Minister broken his pledge?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Labour party manifesto set out our red lines in this negotiation. We will not go back to the battles of the past. We will not return to the single market. We will not return to the customs union. We will not return to freedom of movement. What we will do is negotiate with the European Union to make the British people safer and more secure, so we have closer law enforcement co-operation. We will negotiate to reduce trade barriers to make the British people more prosperous.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are glad that the Government have committed to resetting our relationship with the EU, and that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are actively engaging to rebuild trust and our relationships with our European neighbours through meetings with the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council.
Establishing a UK-EU youth mobility scheme would mirror existing capped arrangements that the UK already has with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Delivering such a scheme would provide a return on investment in the form of soft power that was never seemingly factored into the approach of the previous Conservative Government. Will the Minister confirm that he will have discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and the European Union?
Georgia Gould
Through our procurement regime, we are determined to support small businesses, which are often locally rooted. We will continue to do that, while taking account of our trade obligations.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am delighted to meet the Minister across the Dispatch Box. I have also been meeting many SMEs in the aftermath of the Budget. The impact of the Government’s decision to raise national insurance on many indirect providers of public services, such as GPs and hospices, appears not to have been fully factored into the Government’s workings at the time of the Budget. Now that the Government have had over a month to do the figures, what will be the impact of the national insurance job tax on the cost of public procurement, to the nearest, say, £1 billion?
Georgia Gould
I welcome the hon. Member to their place and look forward to meeting them across the Dispatch Box. Unfortunately, the last Government left this country in a terrible place, with public services in crisis. I was previously a council leader, and every single day I saw the absolute strain on our public services. People were waiting up to 12 hours for ambulances, which sometimes did not turn up. We have had to take action to invest in our public services in order to deliver growth. Through our procurement regime, we are already taking action to support SMEs, to ensure that money is not lost and to ensure that suppliers are paid quickly. I will set out more to the House in February—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to get through the list. Give me a chance to get through it—we are only on question 6.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Alison Bennett
During the recent debate on the infected blood compensation scheme, the Government made promising indications regarding boosting engagement with affected groups. Victims and their families in Mid Sussex and across the country have been waiting for decades for answers. It is essential that people begin to receive the compensation that is so long overdue. Why did the Government make last-minute changes to the accepted documents for interim compensation claims required from the estates of people who died after receiving contaminated blood and blood products? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what action is being taken to tackle the unacceptable delays?
Mr Speaker
Order. I say gently to the hon. Lady that we are now on topicals, which are meant to be short and punchy. Today, we seem to have a bit of time, but please try to help each other.
Pat McFadden
Let me assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who leads on this, is fully aware of the issues she has raised. He is working with the groups affected and is determined to ensure that initial payments are out by the end of the year.
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
It is shameful that child poverty increased by 700,000 under the last Government. Tackling child poverty is at the heart of this Government’s mission. The child poverty taskforce, which I sit on, will publish its strategy in the spring. Increasing the number of parents who are working, and their earnings and hours, plays a crucial role and that is why our plans to get Britain working and the Employment Rights Bill are important in tackling the scourge of child poverty.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Was the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team informed by Downing Street of the former Transport Secretary’s conviction before she was appointed as a Minister of the Crown?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Earlier this week, the Chancellor announced the appointment of Tom Hayhoe as the covid counter-fraud commissioner. The new commissioner will leave no stone unturned to investigate the unacceptable waste and fraud during the pandemic and to make sure that we learn lessons for the future.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Earlier this week, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to bring in proportional representation for Westminster elections and English local elections. I was delighted that it passed a Division of the House. It was supported by Labour Members, as it reflected Labour party policy on this matter. Now that it is the express will of the House that my Bill gets a Second Reading, will the Secretary of State commit to giving the Bill Government time so that it can be fully debated?