Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Philp(3 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of the Reading victims and the victims of other terror attacks.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said that as much information as possible should be put into the public domain as early as possible to maintain public trust. Can the Minister assure the House that he and his ministerial colleagues have always disclosed relevant information at an early stage in relation to high-profile terror-related cases that have attracted substantial public and media attention?
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let me start by offering the Home Secretary a belated congratulations on her appointment. Having been a Minister in that Department, I know how difficult her job is and I genuinely wish her well in doing it. We will always seek to work constructively with the Government in the national interest. I also associate myself with the remarks she made about International VAWG Day—International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and Girls. Since the election, 19,988 people have dangerously and illegally crossed the channel, a 23% increase on the same period last year. Why does the right hon. Lady think the numbers have gone up so much on her watch?
Police Reform
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Philp(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let me welcome the Policing Minister to her role; she is succeeding me in the job that I did in the last Government. I genuinely wish her well in the job, and I hope that she succeeds in it, because it is important for the whole country. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking the police up and down the country for the work that they do to keep us safe. When they put on their uniform to go to work each morning, they take risks that are required of those in few other professions.
In March this year, the police headcount hit 149,769—a record number of police, and 3,000 higher than the previous record. My first question is: will the Policing Minister commit to at least maintaining, if not growing, that record number of police officers? Secondly, will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that in the past seven years, overall crime, as measured by the crime survey for England and Wales—the Office for National Statistics says that is the best measure of crime trends—has come down by 17%? The written statement yesterday, and the Home Secretary’s speech to the National Police Chiefs’ Council yesterday, mentioned the importance of technology, which I feel very strongly about, as the Minister knows. In the March Budget, the previous Chancellor committed to £230 million of spending on police technology over four years, of which this year is the first. About £80 million was due to be spent this year. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the £80 million for this year is secure, and that she and her colleagues will honour the £230 million commitment over the coming four years?
Does the Minister agree that it is important that police spend their time actually investigating crime, not policing thought? Does she agree that the guidelines need to be changed, so that police spend time investigating only real crimes, and investigate non-crimes only when there is a real and imminent risk of criminality? That would mean a change to the guidelines. Will she make that change?
On the reform programme, we need to see the details of course, but will the Minister confirm that no money will be taken away from local police forces? Will she confirm that police and crime commissioners and chief constables will continue to be fully empowered? Finally, on police funding, she mentioned some numbers for next year’s funding settlement. She will be aware that when I was Policing Minister, we arranged a £922 million increase in funding for frontline policing for this financial year, compared with last year. The numbers she talked about in her statement are much lower than that, so will she give a commitment that any funding increase for frontline policing that she brings forward in the police funding settlement will be at least as big as the one that I announced last year?
Business of the House
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Philp(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to business questions, I am sure that the House will want to send our best wishes to Robin James, who retires today after 40 years, during which he clerked the Home Affairs Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee, the Committees on Standards and the Committee of Privileges. Robin was a Clerk of the Committee that approved the building of Portcullis House, and as a Clerk to many Committees since, he has produced many thorough reports. I wish him a long, happy and fulfilling retirement.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House provide us with the forthcoming business?
Chris Philp
Mr Speaker, I echo your thanks and congratulations to Robin James, who retires today after 40 years of service. In this House, we all rely on the service of the Clerks, and I know that we are all extremely grateful to Robin for the work that he has done over four decades. I am sure that the whole House will also want to send our thoughts, prayers and best wishes to those affected by the terrible floods currently happening in Spain. Some British citizens are affected as well.
It is good that we will have such ample time to debate the Budget, because it raises some extremely serious issues. On 29 July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that there was a £22 billion black hole. That claim has been repeated by Labour Ministers subsequently as a pretext for the tax rises that they planned all along. The Chancellor asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a report into this matter, which was published yesterday. It is called the “Review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits”—a snappy title. I have read that report, as I am sure others have, and nowhere does it mention £22 billion. That number is not there at all. In fact, the only reference to a number is found on page 2 and in table 1. Even the Treasury, straining every sinew, could only find numbers that added up to £9.5 billion, and even there the OBR says that
“it is not possible to judge how much of the £9.5 billion”
might actually have been realised. When the Chancellor said that there was a £22 billion black hole, yesterday’s OBR report now proves that that was simply untrue. Will she come here and apologise for providing that number to the House, given that the OBR report shows that it was simply not true, and certainly does not justify £40 billion-worth of tax rises—the largest tax rises in any Budget in history?
Let me turn to election promises and trust in politics, because when we make promises to the public, it is important that we keep them. [Laughter.] I do not know why you are laughing, because these are your promises. The Labour party said that its plans did not require any extra tax rises. Yesterday, the Government announced £40 billion-worth of extra tax rises. They said that there would be no increase in national insurance, but yesterday they announced a £25 billion increase in national insurance.
Let me turn now to their final fig leaf: working people. Apparently, working people would not be affected. In the last couple of hours the Chancellor herself, on the BBC, has admitted what we all knew all along: that working people would be affected, as a result of lower wages. In fact, we can quantify that, thanks to the OBR’s analysis—I am now quite a fan of the OBR. It published yesterday its “Economic and fiscal outlook”. It is 205 pages long, so some Labour Members might not have had a chance to read it all, but I have. On page 54, in paragraph 3.11, it tells us exactly how much of that £25 billion national insurance increase will fall on the shoulders of working people. The OBR says that
“76 per cent of the total”
will result in “lower real wages” for working people. So 76% of that £25 billion increase will fall on the shoulders of working people. That is £19 billion a year lower wages as a result of yesterday’s Budget. That is not me; that is the OBR. So perhaps the Leader of the House would like to apologise to those working people for the £19 billion pay cut she has just handed them.
During the election campaign, Conservative Members warned that Labour’s plans would result in a £2,094 tax increase per working household, and Labour called us liars. I remember being on the radio and the TV, and Labour shadow Ministers at the time—including the Leader of the House, I think—called us liars. We now know the truth: £40 billion a year. That is £2,173 per working household, so about £100 more than we warned. Perhaps she can apologise for that as well.
We also warned that the tax burden would increase to 37.4% of GDP. The OBR says that it will be 38% of GDP—higher even than we warned when Labour called us liars. That is the highest tax burden ever in our country’s history. So the Government were elected on a false prospectus. The OBR has now told us that will result in lower growth by the end of the forecast period and higher inflation. The truth has finally come out: the Government are going to tax more, they are going to borrow more, and they are going to spend more, and now we know who will pay: working people, to the tune of £19 billion a year.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say to the shadow Leader of the House that he said “you”? I am definitely not responsible for this Budget—I want to make that very clear.
Business of the House
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Philp(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp
It is rather telling that only one Government Member appears to be excited about the prospect of the Budget next week. They obviously know what is coming.
Let me start by congratulating Morgan Edwards on his appointment as director of customer experience and service delivery here in Parliament. He starts his role in December. Apparently he was previously employed at Legoland in Windsor. Quite why the parliamentary authorities thought someone with experience of presiding over squabbling juveniles was well suited to working here, I really do not know.
I have to say that the business has been a little thin in recent weeks. We have a general debate today and a general debate on Monday—we have had no fewer than 10 days of general debate so far. Yesterday, we had regulations that would ordinarily be taken in Committee, and business ended early on Tuesday. We expect that at the end of a Government’s time in office, but it is a little early for this Government to be running out of steam.
At this point in the 2019 Parliament, we had had 31 new Bills introduced; we currently have only 18, a third of which had been published or consulted upon previously, and those Bills that are coming forward are being rushed. The Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading on Monday, has much of its policy deferred into regulations, to be debated in Committee at some point in the future, denying the full House the opportunity to properly debate those important issues.
When it comes to the winter fuel payment regulations, which we discussed previously, we should have had the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee before we debated and voted on that important measure. The committee has now finally written its report, and it says that it is concerned about the take-up of pension credit, that the Government’s forecasts of fiscal savings have question marks hanging over them and that we need a full impact assessment, which the Government did not bother providing. The committee has also called for specific changes to the regulations. Will the Leader of the House bring the regulations back to the House for us to consider again now that we have the committee’s report and it has recommended changes?
I believe that the Prime Minister is in Samoa attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit. Will the Leader of the House confirm that he will make a statement upon his return next week? I understand that one of the topics under discussion is the question of reparations. My view is that it is totally wrong to be demanding money, amounting to as much as £18 trillion, for sins—very serious sins—committed hundreds of years ago. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is her view and the Government’s that it is totally wrong to entertain discussions about reparations in relation to things that happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago? I believe that is the Government’s position, and I believe the Prime Minister has ruled out even entering into discussions on that topic, quite rightly. Will she confirm that that remains the position of His Majesty’s Government?
Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to organise a debate on foreign interference in elections—an important topic that concerns us all, and something that Members on both sides of the House have criticised. I understand that more than 100 Labour party staffers are enjoying themselves in the United States in the presidential election that is under way. Ministers have claimed that this is all spontaneous and has all been organised and paid for by the staffers themselves, but that claim appears, to put it politely, grossly implausible now that it has emerged in a now-deleted social media post that the whole thing was arranged by the Labour party’s director of operations, Sofia Patel. She wrote in that deleted post that there were “10 spots available” for campaigning in the swing state of North Carolina, and she said,
“we will sort your housing”.
It looks to me as though that is being organised by the Labour party’s director of operations.
Does the Leader of the House agree that it is damaging to our national interest—this is a serious point—if the governing party, the Labour party, is organising interference or campaigning in another country’s election? [Interruption.] Does she agree that it will make it difficult for His Majesty’s Government to deal with the newly elected Administration in America if the other side wins, and that that will undermine our national interest? Does she accept that by engaging in organised campaigning in this way, Labour is putting party interest before national interest, and will she organise that debate? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, I do not need further comments. I am sure Members are trying to catch my eye, but that is not the best way to do it.
Business of the House
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Philp(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp
May I start by paying tribute to Alex Salmond, a substantial figure in our politics and personally always very popular across the House? We will all miss him. We also fondly remember Sir David Amess, whose crest is on the wall opposite me, and who was cruelly murdered three years ago this week. Sir David and his family will remain forever in our thoughts and prayers.
I congratulate colleagues who introduced Bills yesterday. The Bill on terminally ill adults has attracted particular interest. Getting the details right will be critical. If the Bill proceeds, will the Government commit to providing the time needed in Committee and on Report for full debate and votes?
We have just heard that the Budget will be delivered in 13 days’ time. There was not much enthusiasm from Labour Members when the Leader of the House announced that—I cannot imagine why. Labour solemnly pledged in its manifesto that it would not raise national insurance, so raising employer’s NI would break that promise, as well as hitting working people and destroying jobs.
But hon. Members should not just take my word for it. Paul Johnson of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said that Labour’s NI plan is “a straightforward breach” of its manifesto commitment. The Federation of Small Businesses said it would be “a clear manifesto breach” and will “hit working people”. UKHospitality said it is “a tax on jobs”. The British Chambers of Commerce said it will
“hobble growth and lead to…less money to invest”
in workers. The Institute of Directors called it
“a poll tax on business”
and said that
“the costs will be borne by workers.”
My final witness is Rachel, from Leeds, who apparently used to work briefly at the Bank of England. In 2021, the Chancellor herself admitted that a rise in employers’ national insurance is, in fact, in her words, a “tax on working people”.
Now, Labour Members could have been honest in the election and made the argument for the increase, but they were not honest; they pretended that they had no intention of increasing NI, to trick people into voting for them. However, this is not just about Labour’s election dishonesty. In a Radio 5 Live phone-in yesterday, I spoke to a man who is closing down his business and leaving the country because of the high taxes and increased regulation proposed by this Government. Another man phoned in to say he was closing down too. This Government are driving businesses to close and making successful people leave the country. Their policies will destroy jobs and reduce the amount of tax collected. I say to them sincerely that there is time in the next 13 days to stop and think again. I appeal directly to Labour Back Benchers, whom the Prime Minister is more likely to listen to than me, to please appeal to their Prime Minister to think again. Otherwise, his personal poll ratings—already minus 36%—are likely to plummet further.
Speaking of the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on the special police escort for Taylor Swift? It is reported that the police decided initially that no special escort was needed. Apparently, the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, the Mayor of London and, inevitably, Sue Gray then pressured the police into changing their mind and providing one, violating the police’s operational independence. We now know that among the many freebies that the Prime Minister has eagerly scrounged for himself were tickets and a backstage pass to that very concert. And it was not just him: the Home Secretary, the Science Secretary, the Culture Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Education Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for School Standards and the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary all had free tickets too. What were they doing? Having a Cabinet meeting at the concert? Does the Leader of the House understand how bad this looks? The Government initially denied that the Met was pressured, which now appears to be untrue. Will the Government finally come clean and tell the truth about exactly what pressure was put on the Met and by whom?
Finally, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on illegal immigration and asylum accommodation? It emerged this week that the Government are seeking even more hotels, at huge expense, to cater for the large number of illegal arrivals. Over 13,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel by small boat since the election. The Government must now regret cancelling the Rwanda scheme before it had even started. The deterrent effect would by now have kicked in. We have seen the same approach work in Australia. We have seen the deterrent effect work with returns to Albania. Even the European Commission is now looking at a Rwanda-style scheme. Will the right hon. Lady therefore consider reinstating the scheme, given that the European Commission itself is now looking at it? And why have the Government closed the Bibby Stockholm, leaving them instead frantically renting expensive hotels? The Government are failing on illegal immigration. The country and the House need answers.
Mr Speaker
Order. Shadow Leader of the House, you get five minutes. Please do not take advantage. If you have good points to make, please make them earlier.
Business of the House
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Philp(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House update the House on the forthcoming business?
Business of the House
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Philp(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp
First, I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your unanimous re-election to the Chair and your triumphant victory in Chorley with 75% of the vote. Clearly we can all learn a great deal from you about how to win elections. I look forward to working with you and, I hope, learning from your very long experience of this House. Congratulations to all colleagues elected on 4 July, including those Opposition Members who had to work so hard to survive what was an electoral tsunami of biblical proportions. I especially congratulate those on both sides of the House who were elected for the first time. It is a huge honour to serve in this House.
My particular congratulations go to the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on her appointment as Leader of the House. I hope that she has had the opportunity to practise wielding a sword for several hours and wearing an embroidered cape with panache; her predecessor, Penny Mordaunt, was an expert at doing both things. When looking at the Hansard of previous exchanges, I noticed that in the final business questions of the last Parliament, the shadow Leader of the House, as she was then, paid tribute to Penny’s renowned, formidable blow-dried haircut. I can only apologise to the House for my own short back and sides being nothing in comparison. I know colleagues on both sides of the House will miss Penny, wish her well and hope she returns here before too long. I thank the House staff and Clerks for their work welcoming new Members, and the Leader of the House for the collegiate approach she has taken in our private discussions so far.
However, of course these exchanges are an opportunity to raise questions about House business and the associated conduct of Government. Although the new Government are less than two weeks old, there are already some questions I would like to raise.
First, the Government have announced, with no reference at all to Parliament, that the Rwanda scheme—enabled by Bills that this House passed—has been scrapped. The scheme had been due to start next week, and would have provided a deterrent to illegal immigration across the channel. We have seen deterrents of that kind work elsewhere. Since this Government came into office, more than 1,000 people have illegally and dangerously crossed the channel, with four tragically dying. These crossings are unnecessary, France being safe. When will the Government come to the House to explain the change of policy, and will there be any votes on it?
Moving on, according to press reports the Energy Secretary decided last week to cancel all new applications for oil and gas licences in the North sea. If true, that will increase energy prices and make us more dependent on potentially unreliable foreign gas imports. Why did the Government not first come to the House to explain the new policy, and will there be a vote on it?
The Chancellor gave a speech last week on housing and planning, during which the Housing Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister simply sat and listened in rather uncharacteristic silence. The Chancellor announced that green-belt protections will be scrapped—or, as she euphemistically put it, the green belt will be rebranded as the grey belt. Renaming whole swathes of green belt as grey belt is a piece of shameless spin that would make even Peter Mandelson blush. When will the Government come to the House to explain their plans for the removal of green-belt protections?
The Chancellor also made some outlandish claims about the economy and public finances. The economy is in fact in fantastic condition. Inflation—[Interruption.] Yes, it is—Members should listen! Inflation is down to 2%, lower than in the eurozone and the United States. Wage growth, in contrast, is much higher at 6%. Unemployment is low, at half the level left behind by the previous Labour Government, and the UK’s economic growth so far this year is the highest in the G7.
I understand that the Chancellor might make a statement at some point to the House on these topics. Will the Leader of the House confirm that any claims about public finance made in this House will be accompanied by a full Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, so we can be sure that any such claims are not simply being concocted by the Chancellor as a pretext for tax rises?
Mr Speaker, I have listed several major policy announcements made in the past 10 days with no reference to Parliament at all. You quite rightly said to the previous Government on many occasions that major policy announcements should be made when Parliament is sitting and first to the House. I would welcome your assistance in ensuring that the new Government adhere to those principles. Finally, then, I ask the Leader of the House to make a commitment now that all major policy announcements will be made only when the House is sitting, as the Speaker previously requested, and first to this House of Commons, where elected Members from all parties can ask questions, including the 250 or so newly elected Labour Members, who I am sure want to ask questions as well. I would be very grateful if she would confirm that.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the problem is that people’s comments ought to reflect their previous jobs as well. Maybe that comment is from knowledge about making statements outside the House. I do not know; I do not make any judgment. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that when the House is not sitting, of course statements will be made by the Government, but when the House is sitting, I expect them to be made in the House. That has been a very clear message and the Leader of the House and I are both working to ensure that statements are heard here first. I certainly take the point on board, but I do not want to be drawn into what we should or should not be doing in the future. I welcome the ability to clarify the position.