Local Government Reorganisation

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

For two years!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), but I do not expect him to walk in and start mouthing off the moment he sits down. I am sure that he would like to catch my eye, and that is not the best way to do so.

Jury Trials

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why if the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is easier if you look at me because I cannot pick up what you are saying when you are turned the other way.

[Robert Jenrick]

Of course, Mr Speaker—apologies.

If the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence and the modelling. This is not a minor policy; it will change something that we have enjoyed as a country for hundreds of years. Something as significant as this should be done on the basis of evidence, so I say to the Minister that whether the Government accept our motion or not today is by the bye, but they should accept the spirit of it and publish the evidence now so that everyone can see it; so that the lawyers, judges and practitioners who care and are worried about this can engage in a proper debate; and above all, so that we in the House of Commons, who are the guardians of our constitution and our ancient liberties, can have a debate on the basis of facts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Both parties must share the blame for the present situation. The former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice came before the Justice Committee last year and was asked broadly the same question that the hon. Lady just asked me: what is the root cause of the current backlog? She responded that although the system had been poorly funded for some time, which had created a number of challenges, the primary cause was the pandemic. Covid created immense strain on our justice system. As a result of that, a backlog that had, broadly speaking, been falling in the years prior to the pandemic—it had begun to rise slightly in the period immediately before—shot up. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will not have all sides cross-examining each other. I am listening to just one person at the moment.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am just restating, I think fairly, what the former permanent secretary said. The Ministry of Justice did not do enough to get the backlog under control. There has been a serious failure to fix the productivity problems in our court system, as I think the Institute for Fiscal Studies set out independently in a report last year. Could the last Government have done more? Well, perhaps they could have. They did try to do things: they increased the number of sitting days and brought in special courts, such as Nightingale courts, in parts of the country, which began to make some difference. None the less, the backlog kept rising.

The backlog has risen very substantially under this Labour Government as well. In fact, to the extent that we have accurate figures, it is rising by about 500 cases every month, so the problem has continued to get worse and worse. I therefore do not see today’s debate as a partisan debate between the two main parties. The key thing is how we solve the problem. How do we look to the future? Is slashing jury trials the answer? No. Are there better ways to do this? Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Under the Justice Secretary’s plans to slash jury trials, he is giving magistrates more serious cases. However, he also plans to scrap the automatic right to appeal—a vital safety valve in courtrooms where justice is delivered at pace by volunteers. Last year, 5,000 cases from magistrates courts were appealed, of which more than 40% were upheld. Given that very high rate of successful appeals, will the Secretary of State be honest with the public and concede that curtailing appeals will unquestionably lead to miscarriages of justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I commend the Justice Secretary on the Government’s decision to extend whole-life orders to those who kill prison officers. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting the parents of Lenny Scott when they came to Parliament. It is absolutely right that we extend whole-life orders to cases in which brave prison officers are killed, either in the course of their duties, or in the exceptional circumstances that faced Lenny Scott after he had left the service. The Justice Secretary can be assured of the support of Conservative Members.

Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary appeared on Sky News and revealed that 12 more prisoners had been mistakenly released, and that two remained on the run. I have two very simple questions: since then, how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many more remain on the run?

Criminal Court Reform

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I am glad to see that the Justice Secretary has finally come into work today. When 12 prisoners were mistakenly released after the introduction of his brilliant new checks, he did not bother to come to Parliament to inform the country; then, when I asked his Department whether it is paying compensation to terrorists in prison, he did not show up; and when the news of his plans to scrap jury trials mysteriously emerged in the press last week, he was nowhere to be seen. Like the prisoners under his watch, he has been a man on the run—the “Lammy dodger” of this sorry charade of a Government—but today we are blessed with his presence.

His past is catching up with him, because the best opponent of the Justice Secretary’s plans to curb jury trials is the Justice Secretary himself. In 2020, he said:

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”

In 2017, in his report into prejudice in the criminal justice system, he found that juries

“act as a filter for prejudice”,

but now that he has become the Justice Secretary, he is scrapping the very institution he once lauded. Which is it? Will the real David Lammy please stand up?

It is not just the Justice Secretary. Who can guess which Labour MP said that taking away jury trials

“would be a wholly draconian act”?

It was his own junior Minister, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). And what about this one? Who said there should be a

“right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”?

Any ideas, Mr Speaker? Who else? It is the Prime Minister this time. Do this Government have no shame?

Yesterday, the Justice Secretary boldly claimed that if the medieval barons were around today, they would support his changes. Then again, English history has never been his specialist subject, has it? Eight hundred years on from Magna Carta, we have another unpopular leader who does not listen to his subjects and who levies eye-watering taxes, and a state that locks people up for what they say. Well, I say that the link between British citizens and the administration of justice is as important as ever. It is a link that serves as a check on an occasionally overbearing state. Our ancestors did not stop bad King John, only to be undone 800 years later by this Prime Minister and his court jester.

And all of this because the Justice Secretary cannot manage his own Department. This morning, in England alone more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty. In fact—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wanted, quite rightly, the Justice Secretary to be heard without comment from Opposition Front Benchers, and I certainly expect the same from Government Front Benchers in return.

[Robert Jenrick]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This morning, more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty in England alone. In fact, over 21,000 court days have gone unused this year. Why? Not because there are too many juries, but because the Justice Secretary will not fund the sitting days. Had he done so, the backlog would have shrunk by up to 10,000 cases, but the fact is that it has risen this year.

The truth is that scrapping juries is a choice. This Government could find the money to bear down on the backlog of asylum claims and to spend more on benefits, but not to fund the courts to sit round the clock. Last year, the entire budget for courts and legal aid was £5.5 billion, which is almost exactly the same amount of money—£5.4 billion—that we spent on illegal migrants. He defends their rights under the European convention on human rights, but not our rights under Magna Carta. And for what? He cannot even guarantee that in four years’ time these changes will have reduced the backlog. With this Justice Secretary, it is justice delayed and justice denied.

Much of the rest of the package announced today is sensible, but why has it taken 17 months? The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have all said that jury trials are not the problem.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You are facing the wrong way. It is very hard to hear you when you are looking at the doors.

[Robert Jenrick]

Apologies, Mr Speaker.

Why did the Justice Secretary not start by reforming the Probation Service and court listings, and by tackling delays from late prison transfers? Why has he still not taken up the Lady Chief Justice on all the sitting days that she has offered him? Lastly, why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party’s manifesto?

The Justice Secretary, in his twisted logic, says he is scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt: if he gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials. He is already in retreat. Let us unite to send him packing for good.

Right to Trial by Jury

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No more leaks just yet, please.

[Robert Jenrick]

While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.

Jury trials are

“fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”

Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits.

The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more.

I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?

[Sarah Sackman]

How extraordinary, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claims to care about the rule of law; he claims to care about ancient legal traditions. This is the same shadow Justice Secretary who denigrates our independent judges and our legal community standing up for rights. I have already said it, and I will say it again: the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.

Since he is so fond of quoting our ancient principles and quoting Magna Carta, let me remind him of what is our constitutional right. Magna Carta states:

“to no one will we…delay right or justice.”

The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness. When we have the crisis we inherited from the Conservative party, with a backlog now of some 80,000 cases—and behind each and every one of those cases is an actual victim and somebody accused of a crime—in the current system, we are denying a fair trial. When victims and witnesses pull out of the process, as is increasingly happening, that denies fairness.

I say this while wearing this pin, which shows that we stand in 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls: a woman reporting a rape today in London will be told that her trial may not come on until 2029-30. That is not justice at all, and it is a consequence of allowing the Crown court backlog to spiral out of control while doing nothing and offering not a single answer. That is not upholding the fundamental British constitutional right to a fair trial; it is exactly the opposite.

I for one, certainly, and as part of this Government, am not prepared to sit idly by. That is why we have gripped the crisis, making record investment in sitting days, extending magistrates court sentencing powers, investing in legal aid and asking one of our finest jurists, Brian Leveson, to conduct an independent review to provide us with a blueprint for how we get out of this mess. The Conservative party likes to call itself the party of tradition and the party of law and order, yet it presided over a justice system in which the British public can no longer have confidence.

I am afraid that I am not prepared to let victims down. This Labour Government are finally putting victims first. That is why we will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations. It is why we will undertake to implement his blueprint, which takes as its fundamental premise this: the system is broken. There is no one in this House, no one in the community that represents victims and no one in the legal community—no judge, no one operating and working hard in the system to keep it going—who thinks that the system is not broken. We have to fix it.

Sir Brian Leveson tells us that investment alone will not fix it. We need investment coupled with structural reform and modernisation. That is exactly the blueprint that this Government will bring forward, because, as I said, we believe in the right to a fair trial, we believe in British justice and, unlike the Conservative party, we will deliver swifter justice for victims.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Fuad Awale is an extremist and double murderer who later took a prison officer hostage and demanded the release of the radical cleric Abu Qatada. He is the definition of evil. Yet the Justice Secretary’s Department is now set to pay him compensation as his ECHR rights have apparently been infringed, because he could not associate with monsters like those who killed Lee Rigby. Will the Justice Secretary ensure that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money is handed over to this man? If he will not, and he puts our membership of the ECHR above the interests of the British people, will he put his money where his mouth is and pay any so-called compensation himself?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Currently, if a child sex offender is released from prison, the police and the Probation Service can track them on the sex offenders register, but if a child abuser is released from prison, the authorities have no register to track them with. There is a glaring gap in the system. Paula Hudgell has been fighting to fix the law after her adopted son Tony was abused so badly that he lost his legs. She has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, and she says this campaign is the fire in her belly. Paula is truly inspirational, and we are backing her campaign. Will the Secretary of State take our amendment or bring forward his own, and get this change over the line for Paula, for Tony and to protect children now and into the future?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I can tell him that the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), met Paula today and we are keen to support her campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Harpreet Uppal. Not here. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Last week, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that there was “no doubt” that the Government’s early release scheme would lead to an increase in crime. This followed the news that a man who had been released from prison early had been charged with murder. So this is a simple question: will the Justice Secretary rule out any more early release schemes for prisoners?

Prisoner Releases in Error

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to questions, the Justice Secretary said at one point that 17 prisoners a day were released in error under the last Conservative Government. He then repeatedly said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error by the last Conservative Government. Neither of those things is correct. The actual figure was five a month—and five a month is five too many. I know that he would not want to appear as if he did not know what he was talking about, so might you be able to get him to correct the record, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to continue the debate, and that is what we are in danger of doing. I recognise and accept that a mistake was made. I think you have corrected the record, and we will leave it at that—unless the Justice Secretary wishes to come back.

[Mr Speaker]

Just for the record, you mistakenly said 17 a day, but I knew exactly what you meant: 17 a month. We will leave it at that.

[Robert Jenrick]

That is also wrong.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it might be, but I have corrected the other point.

Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

You are supposed to be a Law Officer—answer the questions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Jenrick, when you get a UQ, you get your time, and I want you to be heard in silence, quite rightly, because this is an important issue that affects this House—but I do not need barracking from the Opposition Benches. I want you to help me. If you wish to catch my eye in the future, this is not the best way to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask your advice? Unusually, the Attorney General does not sit in the House of Commons. When I submitted written parliamentary questions to the Attorney General, they were answered by the Solicitor General, but the Solicitor General refused to provide answers for the Attorney General, only answering for herself. Today, understandably, the Attorney General could not come to the House because he is not a Member of the House, but the Solicitor General repeatedly refused to give answers on behalf of the Attorney General. She referred to the Attorney General’s written answers and to a Select Committee hearing which is ordinarily held in private. How does the House of Commons hold the Attorney General to account?

[Mr Speaker]

There is a collective responsibility for the Government to answer within this House—the right hon. Member is absolutely right to ask the question—but I am not responsible for the answers that the Solicitor General provides. This goes back to the frustration under the previous Administration, when the Foreign Secretary sat in the Lords. My view is that it is much harder, but there is a collective responsibility that questions will be answered in this House. I am not going to keep the debate going now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Child sex offenders destroy the lives of their victims, so why did the Justice Secretary, as Foreign Secretary, appoint the “best pal” and known business partner of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles as our ambassador to Washington? What message does the Minister think this sends to the victims of rape and child sex abuse here in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The Minister could not answer, because it is simply indefensible and she knows it. Everyone in this House knows it. Everyone knows it. On Sunday, the family of one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, said that Mandelson should never have been appointed. I agree; almost every person in this country agrees. Did the Justice Secretary not read the papers that detailed Mandelson’s extensive connections to Epstein after he had been convicted? Or did he read them and flippantly disregard the crimes and pain he caused so many? Will the Minister take this opportunity, in her role, to apologise on behalf of the Justice Secretary to Epstein’s victims?

[Mr Speaker]

I understand the point being raised, and it is a very important one, but we are a long distance from the original question—

[Robert Jenrick]

It is about justice for victims.

[Mr Speaker]

I am well aware of that and certainly do not need to be told. We have a three-hour debate coming up on that subject, so hopefully the Minister can respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. The only one in, one out deal that is working in the Government is the one for Deputy Prime Ministers.

Just last month, the country was crying out that the Justice Secretary must face justice after his scandalous failure to register a licence for fish. Well, he thought he was off the hook, but finally it is justice for Lammy. I know that he has a previous and rather traumatic experience with one John Humphrys on “Mastermind”, so I hope that he is sitting comfortably. How many foreign nationals are clogging up our prisons, and does he stand by the letter he signed that opposed the removal of 50 foreign criminals, one of whom went on to murder?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

There has been a spate of attacks on prison officers in recent months by Islamist terrorists. One study even revealed that terrorists inside prisons are teaching organised criminals how to make bombs. It has got so bad that former governors believe that the threat posed to frontline staff by radicalised Islamists is now intolerable. Can the Minister tell us what his assessment is of the threat from Islamist gangs, and what on earth he is doing about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Sohail Zaffer raped a child. He received 42 months. Manzoor Akhtar raped a child. He was sentenced to four and a half years. Ramin Bari was convicted of four rapes. He got just nine years—just two years per rape. These men were sentenced, but not punished. Does the Justice Secretary think these sentences represent justice? If she does not, like most people in this country, will she change the law so that rape gang perpetrators receive full life sentences?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

In the year since Labour took office, can the Justice Secretary tell us how many individuals have been prosecuted for smuggling people in on small boats?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Can I first say how sorry I was to hear that the Minister was the subject of intimidation and an attack on her office? I think all of us across the House would like to wish her and her staff well, and to say how pleased we are that the vile individuals behind this have been caught and punished.

In September, the Justice Secretary designed an early release scheme for prisoners. She let out Lawson Natty, who supplied the machete used to kill a 14-year-old, and Adam Andrews, who shook a baby so violently that he was left blind and paralysed. She is now halving prison sentences for killers and rapists, while Lucy Connolly remains behind bars for a reprehensible but swiftly deleted tweet. Does the Justice Secretary really believe that her choices are making the public safer?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

This Government are making choices to keep this country safer, and are cleaning up the mess left after the previous Government led our criminal justice system to rack and ruin. They left this Government to make the difficult decisions, when we came into office, that were necessary to prevent the total collapse of our criminal justice system. It is worth reminding the House again, because the Conservatives seem to have very short memories, that they only built an additional 500 prison places. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and getting on with the difficult job of building the prison places necessary to keep violent offenders in prison, while putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

For the first time, the Sentencing Council has published immigration sentencing guidelines. They water down sentences passed by Parliament, which means that hundreds of illegal migrants every year will avoid the threshold for automatic deportation. Once again, the Justice Secretary’s officials were in the meeting and waved the guidelines through, and I have the minutes to prove it. Has the Justice Secretary lost control of her Department once again, or is it the case that, as the Defence Secretary said on Sunday, this Government have simply “lost control” of our borders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Brave prison officers are under attack, and I am warning again that, if the Government do not act now, an officer will be killed on the Justice Secretary’s watch. After the Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, allegedly attacked an office with boiling water, he is now bingeing on treats such as Maltesers and Pringles. When will the Justice Secretary strip Rudakubana and monsters like him of those privileges and put them in solitary confinement? When will she finally have the backs of all our brave prison officers, by giving each and every one the protection that they need in the form of high-collar, stab-proof vests, and not just a privileged few in the most limited circumstances?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me give the shadow Secretary of State a much-needed education, because he appears not to know that under the Tory Government violence on staff in our prisons soared and experienced officers left in droves because of it. That is the inheritance I received, and that is the mess that this Government are clearing up. He will know that I have already acted on suspending the use of self-cook facilities, and Jonathan Hall is looking into the HMP Frankland attack. I have made the announcement on body armour, and I will not hesitate to take any further action, but unlike him I will not take “headline-grabbing” measures, just for the sake of a headline.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say to both Front Benchers that Back Benchers also have to get in? Topical questions have to be short and punchy. Please, let us stick to the script. If the right hon. Member wants to ask longer questions, he should come in earlier—I could have picked the questions where he could have been brought in.

[Robert Jenrick]

Last month, nine countries wrote to the Council of Europe calling for urgent reform of the European convention on human rights to tackle the migration crisis. The UK was conspicuously absent, and instead the Attorney General has likened critics of the ECHR to the Nazis. The Justice Secretary is reported in the press to find Lord Hermer “very frustrating”, and “personally unbearable”. Well, Mr Speaker, we might have found an area of cross-party consensus, but why did the Justice Secretary not sign the letter? Are the Government irrelevant, or are she and the Prime Minister defending a broken system?

Independent Sentencing Review

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Today is about one question: should violent and prolific criminals be on the streets or behind bars? I think they should be behind bars. For all the Justice Secretary’s rhetoric, the substance of her statement could not be clearer: she is okay and her party is okay with criminals terrorising our streets and tormenting our country. The truth is this: any Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thought people had come to listen to the statement and I expect them to listen. I expected the Opposition Front Bench to be quiet; I certainly expect better from the Government Front Bench.

[Robert Jenrick]

Mr Speaker, the truth is this: any Government serious about keeping violent criminals behind bars, any Government willing to do whatever it took, could obviously find and build the prison cells required to negate the need for these disastrous changes. What do the changes amount to? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Swallow, you are getting very excited. You were telling me how good a schoolteacher you were; this is a very bad example of that.

[Robert Jenrick]

What do these changes amount to? They are a “get out of jail free” card for dangerous criminals. Has the Justice Secretary even gone through a court listing recently? Pick one from anywhere in our country: those currently going to jail for 12 months or less are not angels. They are Adam Gregory in Calne, who got 12 months for sexually assaulting his partner; Vinnie Nolan, who got 12 months for breaking someone’s jaw; Shaun Yardley, 10 months for beating his partner; or Paul Morris, who got six and a half months for shoplifting 36 times. Her plan is to let precisely these criminals loose. It is a recipe for a crime wave.

What about the Justice Secretary’s plan for most criminals going to jail to serve just one third of their prison sentence there and for her slashing of sentences across the board—discounts so big they would make Aldi and Lidl blush? I would call it a joke if the consequences for the public were not so terrifying. In fact it gets worse, because criminals who plead guilty—and most do—already get a third cut in their sentence, so under her scheme a burglar who pleads guilty to an 18-month headline term would spend just one fifth of that term in jail—barely 11 weeks. Eleven weeks for smashing through a family’s door and storming through a child’s bedroom looking for valuables, leaving them traumatised for life. Is that the Justice Secretary’s idea of justice for victims? The least she could do is here and now guarantee that violent criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers and sexual assaulters will not be eligible for any discount in their sentence. Will she commit to that?

If not prison, what is the plan to punish these criminals and to keep the public safe? Well, the Justice Secretary says it is digital prisons—as she puts it, prison outside of prison, words that lead most people in this country to conclude that the Justice Secretary is out of her mind. I am all for technology but tags are not iron bars—they cannot stop your child being stabbed on their walk home from school, or a shop being ransacked time and again, or a domestic abuser returning to their victim’s front door.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that “out of her mind” is language that should be used. I am sure the shadow Secretary of State would like to reflect on that.

[Robert Jenrick]

Of course, Mr Speaker.

The Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme found that 71% of tagged offenders breached their curfew. When it comes to stopping reoffending, tags are about as useful as smoke alarms are at putting out bonfires. What is the Justice Secretary going to say when she meets the victims of offenders that she let off? How is she going to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, “I’m sorry—we are looking into how this criminal escaped from their digital prison cell.” Her reforms are a recipe for carnage.

I urge the Justice Secretary to change course and to make different choices—yes, choices—from the ones that we knew the Government would make from the day that the Prime Minister hand-picked Lord Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, a man who is on record as saying that

“a lot of people in prison…shouldn’t be there”—

two thirds of them in fact, he said—

“and they are there for far too long”.

The Labour party is clearly ideologically opposed to prison and that is why the Government are letting criminals off with a “get out of jail free” card, rather than deporting the 10,800 foreign national offenders in our prisons—one in every eight cells—a figure that is rising under the Justice Secretary’s watch. If she is actually serious about keeping violent criminals off our streets and finding the cells that are needed, will she bring forward legislation, tomorrow, and disapply the Human Rights Act 1998, which is stopping us from swiftly deporting foreign national offenders?

Some 17,800 prisoners are on remand awaiting trial—another figure that has risen under the Justice Secretary. In fact, her own Department’s figures forecast that it could rise to as many as 23,600. If she is serious, will she commit to taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s request for extra court sitting days to hear those cases and free up prison spaces? Will she commit, here and now, to building more than the meagre 250 rapid deployment cells her prison capacity strategy says she is planning to build this year? They have been built in seven months before, and they can be built even faster.

If the Justice Secretary were serious, she would commit to striking deals with the 14 European countries with spare prison capacity, renting their cells from them at an affordable price, as Denmark is doing with Kosovo. Between 1993 and 1996, her beloved Texas, the state on which she modelled these reforms—a state that, by the way, has an incarceration rate five times higher than that of the United Kingdom—built 75,000 extra cells. If the Government were serious, why can they not build 10,000 over a similar time period?

Labour is not serious about keeping hyper-prolific offenders behind bars. In fact, there is nothing in the Justice Secretary’s statement on locking them up or cutting crime, because the Labour party does not believe in punishing criminals and it does not really believe in prison. The radical, terrible changes made today are cloaked in necessity, but their root is Labour’s ideology. It is the public who will be paying the price for her weakness.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The shadow Secretary of State talks about serious Government—if the Government that he was a part of had ever been serious, they would have built more than 500 prison places in 14 years in office—[Interruption.] He is a new convert to the prison-building cause. He and his party have never stood up in this Chamber and apologised for adding only 500 places—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want the same respect from Members on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Do we understand each other?

[Robert Jenrick]

indicated assent.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Mr Speaker, if I were waiting for respect from Opposition Members, I would be waiting for a long time, so it is a good job that I do not need it.

The shadow Secretary of State talks about “iron bars”, but he was part of a Government that did not build the prison places that this country needs. Unlike him, I take responsibility, and it has fallen to me to clean up the mess that he and his party left behind. In case there is any confusion, let me spell out what happens when he and his party leave our prison system on the brink of collapse, which is exactly what they did, and set out the prospect that faced me on day one, when I walked into the Justice Department. When prisons are on the verge of collapse, we basically have only two choices left at our disposal: either we shut the front door, or we have to open the back door. The right hon. Gentleman’s party knew that that was the situation it was confronted with, but did it make any decisions? No, it just decided to call an election instead and did a runner.

The public put the Conservatives in their current position. If they ever want to get out of that position, I suggest that they start by reckoning with the reality of their own track record in office. In any other reality, they should have started already with an apology. Conservative Members have had many chances to apologise to the country for leaving our prisons on the point of absolute collapse, but they have never taken them. Frankly, that tells us everything that anyone needs to know about the modern Conservative party.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick]

“Sorry” seems to be the hardest word today. I see that the Justice Secretary has still not come to Parliament to defend her policy. Yesterday she deliberately avoided scrutiny in this House, because she knows that this decision is wildly unpopular and risks the safety of the public. To govern is to choose. There are 10,500 foreign criminals in our jails and 17,000 people in prison awaiting trial. Combined, those two groups make up roughly a third of the prison population.

The sensible step forward would obviously be to introduce emergency measures to expedite deportations and get the courts sitting around the clock. If the Justice Secretary chose to do that, we would support her, but so far she has not. She has refused to take the judiciary up on its offer of extra court sitting days. It is not uncommon for as many as half the courts at the Old Bailey to sit empty on any given day. Instead, she has decided to let out early criminals who reoffend or breach their licence. There is now no punishment or deterrent for criminals who immediately reoffend or cheat the system. The Justice Secretary says these people will be “in prison outside of prison”—I am sure that hardened criminals will be quaking in their boots at that farcical doublespeak.

There is no two ways about it: this decision has put the public in danger and victims in jeopardy. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, has said that she

“cannot stress enough the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger”.

Is the Justice Secretary or her Minister really telling domestic abuse victims that their abusers will be back on the streets in just 28 days if they breach their licence, and that nobody will even check with the Parole Board? Can the Minister explain to the House who is exempted from the scheme, because right now confusion reigns? Yesterday the Justice Secretary gave the impression that no domestic abusers or sexual offenders would be eligible for her scheme, but her Department has since said that it will include “many” but not all.

The written ministerial statement laid yesterday deliberately concealed the answer to the question of which criminals will be excluded, so will the Minister take this opportunity to tell the House? If he does not know the answer, will he commit to publishing it by the end of the day? Lastly, can he confirm to the House that anyone in breach of a restraining order will be ineligible for a fixed-term recall, because anything else would be an insult to the victims?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It has been six days since the Supreme Court handed down its landmark judgment in the case brought by For Women Scotland—a judgment that confirms basic biological reality and protects women and girls. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the policy to stop male offenders, however they identify, being held in the women’s estate, especially those convicted of violence or sexual offences. Will the Lord Chancellor and her Ministers confirm that the Government will implement the Supreme Court judgment in full and that they will take personal responsibility for ensuring that it is in every aspect of our justice system, or do they agree with senior Ministers in their party who now appear to be actively plotting to undermine the Supreme Court’s judgment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Today, the Justice Secretary is belatedly introducing a Bill to restore fairness in who receives a pre-sentence report, but it will not correct what the pre-sentence report says. Under brand-new guidance that the Justice Secretary’s Department issued in January, pre-sentence reports must consider the “culture” of an offender and take into account whether they have suffered “intergenerational trauma” from “important historical events”. Evidently, the Labour party does not believe in individual responsibility and agency. Instead of treating people equally, it believes in cultural relativism. This time the Justice Secretary has nobody else to blame but herself. Will she change that or is there two-tier justice? Is that the Labour party’s policy now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I support the Lord Chancellor’s decision to commission a full statutory inquiry into the terrible attack in Nottingham. I know it will be welcomed by the families and everyone in the city and across my home county of Nottinghamshire. I fully support her welcome decision.

Greg Ó Ceallaigh is a serving immigration judge who decides asylum and deportation appeals. It took nothing more than a basic Google search to uncover his past comments that the Conservative party should be treated the same way as Nazis and cancer. As a sitting judge, he has publicly supported Labour’s plans to scrap the Rwanda scheme and for illegal entry into the United Kingdom to be decriminalised. Does the Lord Chancellor believe this is compatible with judicial impartiality? If not, what does she intend to do about it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks on the new Nottingham inquiry—I am very grateful for his support. I am sure the whole House will want to see the inquiry come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that when people have a complaint to make about judges, they can do so via the well-placed mechanism of the judicial complaints office. If he wishes to make a complaint, he can do so, but what I will not do is indulge in, effectively, the doxing of judges, especially not when they are simply doing their job of applying the law in the cases that appear before them. If there are complaints to be made about judicial conduct, I am sure the shadow Lord Chancellor knows how to go about it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say that we must be careful about what we do here? We are not meant to criticise judges, and I know that this House would not do so. I am sure that we will now change the topic.

[Robert Jenrick]

Mr Speaker, it is important that judges and the manner in which they are appointed are properly scrutinised in this House, and I will not shy away from doing so. Helen Pitcher was forced to resign in disgrace as the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission after a formal panel found that she had failed in her duties during one of the worst miscarriages of justice in recent memory. But she is still in charge of judicial appointments, despite judges appearing in the media every week for their activism. Her commission has failed to conduct the most basic checks on potential judges, either out of sheer incompetence, or out of sympathy with their hard-left views on open borders. The commission is broken and is bringing the independence of the judiciary into disrepute. How much longer will it take for the Justice Secretary to act and remove the chair of this commission from her position and defend the independence and reputation of the judiciary?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am afraid that the shadow Chancellor cannot elide the process for the appointment of judges with a wider attack on the independence of the judiciary. I hope that he will take the admonishment from you, Mr Speaker, and the clear disapprobation of this House to reflect on the way that he is approaching his role. If there are complaints to be made about judicial conduct, there is already a robust process in place for doing so. If the shadow Lord Chancellor wishes to avail himself of that, I am sure that, given how active he is, he will be happy to do so. What is completely improper is to take his position in this House to indulge in a wider attack of the judiciary at a time when we know that judicial security has been compromised—

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his response to the urgent question, the Minister has repeatedly told the House that the previous Government approved the guidelines. In particular, he besmirched the name of the former sentencing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). What the Minister said to the House today was wrong. On page 4, paragraph 4, of the Sentencing Council’s letter of 10 March to the Justice Secretary, it made it perfectly clear that the guidelines published under this Government were materially different from those considered by the prior Government. In fact, the Minister’s official was present at the meeting of the Sentencing Council at which this version of the guidelines was signed off. Will he take the opportunity to correct the record? I am afraid that he has misled the House not once, not twice, but on numerous occasions today, and that is quite wrong.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Nobody misleads the House; the right hon. Gentleman means “inadvertently” misled the House.

[Robert Jenrick]

I do hope it was inadvertent, Mr Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Under the Justice Secretary’s leadership, her Department let out dozens of dangerous prisoners by mistake last year. Now we have uncovered that criminals who were let out early by her Department were not monitored for up to eight weeks, as they were not fitted with electronic tags. It is another glaring error. Will the Justice Secretary clear up some confusion? How many criminals did her Department fail to tag? Were any offences committed while these criminals went unmonitored, and who has been held accountable for this gross incompetence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Sentencing Council issued a letter correcting the Justice Secretary. It made it clear that the new sentencing guidelines were not the same as the draft guidance under the last Government and explained that her Department supported the new two-tier guidance—her representative was at the meeting—and it was approved on 24 January. Her officials were even given a walkthrough on 3 March—a dummy’s guide to two-tier justice. After I brought that to her attention last Wednesday, her team briefed the papers that she was “incandescent”. Was she incandescent at her officials or at her own failure to read her papers and do her job properly?

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It is great to see the Justice Secretary back in the country after her holiday in Texas. If she can find time to travel to America, why can she not find time to travel to the two category A prisons—[Interruption.] I will be pleased to hear from the right hon. Lady if that is the case. That was not the answer to our written parliamentary question the other day.

Today, the central criminal court has 13 courtrooms sat empty. In Preston, 40% of courtrooms sit empty, and in Winchester the figure is two thirds. That is a result of the court backlog, which has grown under this Justice Secretary. We need to be maximising court capacity, taking full advantage of all available days and probing the judiciary for options to create more capacity. I know that, and I would like to believe that the right hon. Lady knows that, but how did we get here? We got here because, just like in every other area, this Labour Government came into office with no plan whatsoever, and they have wasted their first eight months in office.

Upon the Justice Secretary entering office, the Lady Chief Justice informed her that there were at least 6,500 sitting days available to address the court backlog. The Justice Secretary responded by adding a measly 500 sitting days, and the court backlog kept growing. So frustrated was the Lady Chief Justice that she came to Parliament in November and took the unusual step of publicly chastising the Justice Secretary, and reiterated her offer of 6,500 sitting days. The Justice Secretary responded a month later by adding 2,000 sitting days, and the court backlog kept growing.

Here we are again, eight months on from the Justice Secretary taking office and on the very day that the Public Accounts Committee has published an excoriating report into her Department, with her promising more sitting days. Is it third time lucky for the Justice Secretary? No. What we have learned again today is that she is still turning down available sitting days, and astonishingly, she has conceded that the court backlog will keep on rising. That is simply not acceptable.

Of course, I welcome the changes made by the Justice Secretary, but they are not enough. She says that victims will get quicker justice—tell that to the victims of rape who are having their court cases listed for 2028. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, I need to be able to hear the shadow Lord Chancellor, and when Government Front Benchers shout for so long, I cannot hear. I will decide whether a statement is in order or not—are we understanding each other?

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not pretend that cutting the court backlog is easy, or that it will be quick, but the Justice Secretary owes the country a plan and a timetable for when that backlog is actually going to fall. This morning, she was repeatedly asked that question, but refused to give an answer. Can she tell the country now when the court backlog will begin to fall, by what date her Department has forecast it falling, and why she will not take up the 2,500 additional sitting days offered time and time again by the Lady Chief Justice?

Lastly, the new sentencing guidelines published alongside this statement will make a custodial sentence less likely for those

“from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community”.

Why is the Justice Secretary enshrining this double standard—this two-tier approach to sentencing? It is an inversion of the rule of law. Conservative Members believe in equality under the law; why does she not?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The shadow Secretary of State asked, “How did we get here?” I will tell him how we got here—his Administration and the 14 years they had in power, and the absolute mess they made of the criminal justice system; a mess that this Government are clearing up. I am sorry to deprive him of what I am sure he thought was a clever attack line on my recent visit to Texas, but I can inform him that I have in fact visited HM Prison Manchester. I did so during the February recess. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

The courts backlog is growing by 500 cases every month, and the Ministry of Justice has not set a date for when it will come down. Victims are being forced to put their lives on hold while they wait for a trial date, yet today at the Old Bailey half of all the courtrooms sit empty. The Lady Chief Justice has said that there are 4,000 additional sitting days available that could be used now. Who is the obstacle to resolving this? Is it the Justice Secretary, who is content for rape trials to be scheduled for as far off as 2027, or is it the Chancellor, and the Justice Secretary has just had rings run around her by the Treasury?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Contempt of court laws are guardrails that ensure fair trials. Does the Justice Secretary accept that, as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said, by failing to provide basic information to the public that has been disclosed in previous cases—information that would not prejudice a trial—the authorities created a vacuum in which misinformation spread? That misinformation could itself have been prejudicial to the trial. Does she agree that in an age when most people consume their news through social media, saying nothing is not cost-free? Will she commit to reviewing this issue now, rather than waiting for the Law Commission?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Two weeks ago, three grooming gang members were sentenced at Bradford Crown court for the most appalling rapes of children, but they received only six, seven and nine-year sentences respectively—six years, out on licence in four, for the rape of a child. Does the Secretary of State agree that those sentences are disgracefully short, and will she commit to using the sentencing review to mandate full life sentences for these evil people? If she will, she will have our support.

Drones: High-security Prisons

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Given that this is a question of national security, I find it astonishing that the Lord Chancellor cannot be bothered to turn up to the House today. Yesterday—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We do not need any more of that.

[Robert Jenrick]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday, the chief inspector of prisons warned that the police and prisons service have “ceded the airspace” above two high-security prisons to organised crime groups. The result is that organised crime gangs can deliver drugs, phones and weapons such as zombie knives to inmates with impunity due to the absence of basic security measures such as functional CCTV, protective netting and window repairs. Across two visits in September and October, he described a damning picture of thriving illicit economies that jeopardise the safety of dedicated prison staff.

In HMP Manchester, almost four in 10 prisoners have tested positive in mandatory drug tests, and in HMP Long Lartin the figure was nearly three in 10. Those two prisons hold some of the most dangerous men in our country, including murderers and terrorists. If organised crime gangs can deliver phones and drugs to inmates’ cells, they could be delivering serious weapons and explosives as well.

The chief inspector said that the potential for escapes or hostage taking is of enormous concern. This could not be more serious. The situation has become, in his words,

“a threat to national security.”

I do not pretend that these problems are entirely new, but they have deteriorated and they need urgent action. Will the Minister provide the timeframes for fixing the most basic security measures? What visits has the Lord Chancellor made to HMP Manchester and HMP Long Lartin? If she has not visited, when does she intend to go? Little else could be more pressing. What discussions has she held with the prison governors? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government have confidence in the senior management to restore order? Does he agree with the chief inspector that the failure to grip the situation is a serious indictment of the Department?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Who had 14 years to grip this situation? At least this Government are taking action—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

The Lady Chief Justice has said that the courts are not operating at full capacity, perpetuating the record numbers in prison on remand, awaiting trial. There could be an extra 6,500 sitting days if the Government allowed them. Cases such as rape and sexual assault are being pushed into 2027. Baroness Carr warned the Justice Secretary that failure to maximise judicial capacity would actually cost the Government more in costly and limited prison places, yet the Justice Secretary failed to agree to her request. Why are the Government letting out criminals rather than hearing more cases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

In London, there is a phone theft epidemic, and this time it is not the former Transport Secretary on the loose. Last year, more than 64,000 mobile phones were reported to the police as stolen in the capital alone. The small number of individuals responsible should be locked up for a long time, yet last month, a criminal who used a motorbike to steal 24 phones an hour was jailed for just two years. Enough is enough, so will the Justice Secretary commit to dramatically increasing sentences for career criminals, get them off our streets and slash crime?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We welcome the new shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I belatedly congratulate the Government Front-Bench team on their appointments—I have been a little busy over the summer. The only group the Labour Government’s popularity has increased during that time with is criminals. How many domestic abusers and sex offenders released under their early release scheme have gone on to reoffend? Would the Minister like to apologise to the victims?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Police firearms officer Sergeant Blake was a hero and we all want to see individuals like him, who put themselves in the line of fire, respected. What work is the Lord Chancellor doing, alongside the Home Secretary, to review the threshold for prosecution for individuals such as Sergeant Blake, so that they never find themselves in the invidious position that he did?

Net Migration Figures

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I listened to the right hon. Lady for five minutes or so and detected absolutely no trace of a plan from her—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am worried, because I can only allow two minutes. Please do not go telling everybody that I have allowed five minutes. Honestly, it was only two minutes.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will keep that as a secret, Mr Speaker.

The only policy that the right hon. Lady articulated is something that is barely used and would have a de minimis effect on net migration, but that should come as no surprise to any of us. She has spent her entire political career campaigning for uncontrolled migration. She has campaigned for freedom of movement—she backed a Leader of the Opposition who campaigned for freedom of movement. She has always supported and lobbied and campaigned for unfettered access to the United Kingdom. She said that there is chaos on the Government side of the House, but all we heard from her was rhetoric and posturing. It would be laughable if it were not so serious.

Every single Conservative Member of Parliament campaigned on a manifesto commitment to bring down net migration. I did not see that in the Labour party’s manifesto at the last election. Although she may be doing what she is because she is reading the polls or wants to posture, we are doing it out of deep political conviction. We believe that the number of people coming into this country is too high, that it places unbearable pressure on our public services and on housing, and that it is making it impossible to integrate people into this country and harming community cohesion and national unity. It is also a moral failure, because it is leaving people on welfare and enabling companies all too often to reach for the easy lever of foreign labour. For all those reasons, we are determined to tackle this issue. We understand the concerns of the British public, and I am here to say that we share them and will bring forward a serious package of fundamental reforms to address the issue once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I support my hon. Friend in his lobbying and campaigning for the Government to take this issue seriously. He speaks for millions of people across the country who see the levels of net migration as far too high. Of course, it is right that we want the UK to be a country that is open to the very best and the brightest, and that is why we have taken action in creating visa routes such as the global talent one that the Prime Minister was promoting at the investment summit this week, but we must reduce net migration. That means taking difficult choices and making a tangible difference in the months ahead. The public are sick of talk. They want action, and they want us to bring forward a clear plan.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1B, 7B and 90D.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 9B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 23B, and Government motion to disagree.

Amendments 36A and 36B, and Government motions to insist, and Lords amendments 36C and 36D, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 33B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 56B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 102B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 103B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 107B and 107C, and Government motions to disagree.

[Robert Jenrick]

Last Tuesday, this House voted 18 times —more times than on any other day on any other piece of legislation—and 18 times it voted to support this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The approach that the Home Secretary and I have taken has been both to ensure that, where there are high grant rate nationalities, cases are pursued swiftly, and where there are low grant rate nationalities, such as Albanians—individuals from a safe European country—who can and should be returned as quickly as possible, we do just that. At this point last year, 30% of those arriving on small boats were coming from Albania; today, it is less than 2%. That arrangement is clearly making good progress. None the less, my right hon. Friend makes an important point: those who suggest that we can simply grant our way out of this problem are, I am afraid, hopelessly naive. The idea that the individuals coming across on small boats will, in most cases, make a significant net contribution to our economy is wrong. The costs to the taxpayer are very significant. The ongoing costs of education, access to welfare and community cohesion are very significant, which is why we need to stop the boats in the first place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

If the Scottish Government cared so deeply about this issue, they would accommodate more asylum seekers. The SNP Government are accommodating just 4.5% of the total asylum population being accommodated in the UK, when Scotland makes up 8.1% of the UK population. I took the time to look at some of the statistics for those local authorities in Scotland where the SNP is the largest party: Clackmannanshire, zero asylum seekers; Dundee, zero asylum seekers; East Ayrshire, zero; East Dunbartonshire, zero; Midlothian, zero; North Ayrshire—want to take a guess, Mr Speaker? —zero; North Lanarkshire, six—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No, no, no—you are going to get my drift. We cannot read out phone numbers. This is not the “Yellow Pages” advert. One or two statistics are fine, but when we get to five I really do worry. Let us have the SNP spokesperson.

Net Migration Figures

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The Labour party feigns interest in cutting net migration, but I can assure the right hon. Lady that nobody is buying it. Last week, the chair of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), said that under Labour net migration would go up in the short term. The leader of the Labour party stood on a campaign pledge to defend freedom of movement if the UK remained outside the EU. He has said that there is a

“racist undercurrent which permeates all immigration law”.

Does the shadow Home Secretary agree with that?

At every possible opportunity, Labour Members have voted against every measure this Government have brought forward to control migration. They voted against ending free movement and, at every turn, they voted against measures to tackle illegal migration. Just recently, they voted against the Illegal Migration Bill. The truth is that the Labour party has no interest in controlled and orderly migration. The Conservative party is taking tangible steps to bring down net migration. Yesterday, we took a decisive step to clamp down on student dependants, because universities should be selling education, not immigration. Belatedly, the shadow Home Secretary says she agrees with that. The Conservative party made a solemn promise to the British public to reduce net migration. Thanks to Brexit, we now have the tools at our disposal to do that. We can and we must deliver.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am sorry that, while my right hon. Friend was replying to those questions, four of the Labour Front Benchers were talking at the same time. I think that was to disguise the fact that their spokesperson appeared to agree with virtually every sensible element of the Government’s immigration control policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about this? Beyond the admission order office, there is the memorial plaque for the Kindertransport. Some of those who feel most strongly against immigration now feel proud of what we did then. We have to remember that there were then and there are now tens of millions of people around the world suffering because of violence in their own countries, and there are others with bad Governments who stop them having economic success where they are. Can I say that, as well as having a good immigration policy, we ought to do all we can around the world to have better governance and a flexible economic system, so that people can be happy living where they are, not feeling that they have to come here for refuge?

[Robert Jenrick]

I strongly agree with the Father of the House. We have made two very significant interventions in the last two years. The first was to provide sanctuary here in the United Kingdom for Hong Kong BNOs, to whom we have a moral and historical obligation, to enable them to escape creeping authoritarianism in Hong Kong and make a new life here in the UK. We are proud of that, and I expect that, in the years to come, that scheme will be looked back on as a great success for this country. Secondly, the Ukraine schemes have now led to 200,000 Ukrainians coming to the UK and seeking sanctuary here, with hundreds of thousands of British people opening up their homes to support them. Those were great schemes.

We want to ensure schemes such as those can continue, and that the UK can be an even greater force for good in the world. That does not mean, however, that we should go slow on further measures to bring down net migration, because net migration does place very significant burdens on communities in respect of housing, public services and our ability to integrate people. That is why we made further interventions this week, and we will consider further ones in the future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Student Visas

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Obviously that cost varies widely depending on the country of origin and the skills of those individuals. The points-based system is set up in such a way as to encourage higher-skilled individuals to come to the UK for work purposes, but my right hon. Friend is right to say that it is a relatively accessible system, and that has meant large numbers of people entering the UK for a range of different reasons in recent years. We should be acutely concerned about the pressures that is putting on housing supply, public services and integration, particularly in those parts of the country with heated housing markets, such as the one he represents. That is why it is right that we take action of the kind we are taking today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I respect my right hon. Friend and his deep knowledge of this area, but I do not think it is helpful to change the way in which the statistics are reported. I do think that we have to consider the fact that anyone coming into this country will place pressure on our housing supply and on public services, particularly if they are bringing dependants, including young children or elderly relatives, into the UK. In the present climate, in which there is significant pressure on public services and significant pressure on housing, particularly in certain parts of the country, that is extremely important.

We have seen, historically, that the vast majority of students leave the country and go back to their home country to continue their careers and lives. It is too early to say whether the graduate route will make a material difference to that. It may be, if individuals come to the UK to study and then spend a period of time here on the graduate route, and certainly if they bring dependants, that we will start to see a significant increase in the number of people staying here, making a life in the UK and not returning home, in which case policies of this kind will become more important.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

It is right that we consider economic growth and the needs of our economy, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that these decisions also require careful consideration of the impact of large amounts of legal migration on housing, access to public services and, as he said, community cohesion and integration. That is absolutely the approach of the Government and the Home Secretary, and I am considering the challenge.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. When she was Home Secretary, she set out the policy to create large sites on which to house asylum seekers in a more focused and less expensive manner, and she took forward a proposal for a site in the north of England. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have continued that tradition and set forth plans for three sites: one at Bexhill, one at Wethersfield and one at Scampton.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

I would be happy to take a further look and to learn from my hon. Friend’s experience. I am pleased to say that UK Visas and Immigration is now processing all new visit visa applications within the service standard of 15 days, with 323,000 applications from those with African nationalities last year.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

T4. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration will know that Portland port, although in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), is very close to the constituency border of West Dorset. My constituents in Chickerell and wider West Dorset are becoming increasingly concerned about the absence of information on the risk assessment and on the additional resources that will be made available to Dorset Council and Dorset police. Has he any further information that he can share with the House today?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has defended his constituents on this difficult issue. Although housing asylum seekers in more rudimentary accommodation such as barges is undoubtedly in the national interest, we are acutely aware of the challenges faced by the local communities in which they will be moored. That is why we are working closely with Dorset Council, with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax).

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Illegal Migration Bill makes it clear that we want to break the cycle of the human traffickers. We will do that by carefully considering cases and returning those people who can be returned to their home country, where it is safe to do so. In cases such as Albania, we have worked closely with the Government to put in place the procedures necessary to ensure that those people are carefully looked after and not at risk of re-trafficking. If that is not the case, they will be taken to a safe third country such as Rwanda where, once again, their needs will be looked after.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I had a helpful and constructive meeting with my right hon. Friend and his constituents. No decision has been made with respect to RAF Scampton, and we will consider all of the things that were said in that meeting extremely carefully as we come to a final decision.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Neale Hanvey—not here.

Knowsley Incident

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

On the legislation that I have mentioned, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I are working closely as we finalise those plans. It is absolutely right that we take time to ensure that this legislation is as effective as possible. As my hon. Friend knows, this is one of the most litigious areas of public life. It is an area where, I am afraid, human rights lawyers abuse and exploit our laws at times, and where the courts have taken an expansive approach in the past. That is why we must get this right, but we will be bringing forward that legislation very soon.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The Home Office is reviewing a range of options and having exploratory conversations with a number of local authorities. If the local authority, Sefton Council, does not wish to proceed On the Pontins site in my hon. Friend’s constituency then the site will not proceed, because it is the freeholder of that site. He should really speak to Sefton Council to get that assurance, but the task for all of us is to stop the boats, or else we will continue to have troubles like this in the years ahead, with thousands of individuals crossing the channel illegally and placing unbearable strain on our asylum accommodation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend has raised an important issue. We take our moral commitment to those who supported our troops and our efforts in Afghanistan extremely seriously. We have helped more than 20,000 individuals to come to the UK, some before Operation Pitting, some during that operation and some since, under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and subsequently the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. The Foreign Office is drawing up a further list of individuals for the ACRS. The people to whom my right hon. Friend has referred should be applying to that scheme, and we hope we will be able to bring them to the United Kingdom as soon as possible, if they are not here already.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

In 2019, the then Conservative Home Secretary said that she would end small boat crossings in a matter of months. Since then, the number of crossings has increased from 1,000 to 45,000, with the criminal gangs laughing all the way to the bank. Last year, Ministers promised that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would deal with the crisis, but in fact it has caused the asylum backlog to spiral out of control, forcing the British taxpayer to foot the bill for an extra £480 million in six-monthly accommodation costs. Now, Ministers are making all the same empty promises again. The Refugee Council says that the latest Government proposals will cost the taxpayer an extra £1 billion every six months, without anyone being returned anywhere. Does the Minister agree with Albert Einstein that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a definition of madness?

[Robert Jenrick]

The problem with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is that they vote against every step that we bring forward. In an age of mass migration in which millions of people are on the move and want to come to our country, either as economic migrants or asylum shoppers, we have to take the most robust action we can. The system we are building is a simple one in which those who want to come here illegally in small boats will find no way to a life in this country. They will be returned home, or to a safe third country such as Rwanda.

We will fulfil our commitment to those fleeing genuine persecution, war and human rights abuses, such as through the schemes that we have created for Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine, but we on the Government Benches are capable of seeing the difference between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants. I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will join us in voting for that further legislation when we bring it forward shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Unaccompanied Asylum-seeking Children

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those questions. He is right to make the final point, which is that these are not secure locations. Young people are not detained in them. We do not have the legal powers to do that and I do not think any right hon. or hon. Member from across the House would wish us to do that. It is inevitable that some young people will choose to leave these settings, as, very sadly, they do from local authority care homes, but that is not to diminish or renege on our responsibility to reduce that as far as we possibly can.

We have relationships with charities and the voluntary sector. I will happily take up with the Department whether there is more we can do there. We have made good use of those relationships in other settings, such as hotels for adults and Manston. As I said earlier, there is a very significant amount of specialist support in the hotels. I specifically asked the officials running them what we would find on any given day. It is several security guards, a number of nurses and a number of social workers, as well as team leaders running the operation. So they are well staffed by well-trained and professional individuals who are drawn from other settings where they are used to looking after vulnerable young people.

Lastly, on the first point my hon. Friend made, there is a challenge around the legal status of a local authority with respect to these hotels. Our objective is to reduce demand for hotels as fast as possible, so that young people are in this accommodation for a very short period of time while we get them to local authorities where they can be cared for properly in accordance with the law.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Yvette Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. and learned Friend raises a very important issue. There is, as he knows as well as almost anyone in this House, a lack of capacity in relation to specialist foster carers. That is why the Department for Education conducted its care review, is considering the findings, and will be bringing forward recommendations in due course. Most young people in the hotels we are discussing today are older—predominantly 16 and 17-year-olds—so it is about a national lack not only of foster care capacity, but of supported accommodation and the kind of settings that a 17-year-old, for example, might be placed in for a relatively short period of time before they move forward with their life. Those issues are very important to us, which is why, for my part, I have made available significantly increased funding for local authorities so they can, for example, use that money to procure more supported accommodation.

On the case my hon. and learned Friend referred to, that is a truly shocking case. We are reviewing how it has happened and how the individual was able to enter the UK posing as a minor. We will learn the lessons and set out more in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that, as I made clear earlier, we should treat any child who goes missing with the same focus and intensity of effort, regardless of their background, nationality and immigration status. That is exactly what happens in this case. If a young person leaves a hotel—for example, the one that we are discussing this afternoon—and does not return within four hours, they are immediately recognised as a missing person. The local police—in this case, Sussex—are contacted, and the case is treated with all the same effort as it would be for any other individual.

That is why a significant proportion of these young people have, fortunately, been found and returned to care. But too many have not, so I think my right hon. Friend makes a valid point that we should be working with local police forces and others to see whether the procedures that we have in place are sufficient or whether we need to go further. That work was done last year, and it led to the new protocol that I described earlier. From the numbers that I have received, that has made an impact: occurrences have reduced by about a third, but if there are further steps that we should be taking, we will do so.

This is a broader challenge, because the numbers going missing from these settings are, sadly, not dissimilar from the numbers going missing from local authority children’s homes. We should be applying all our learnings from this to local authority settings as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me say first that there is no pitting of the Home Office against the local authority. The Home Office is working closely with Brighton & Hove City Council, and we have a good working relationship. My officials speak regularly to those at the council, and, having spoken to the chief executive and the director of children’s services, I can say that they too feel that the relationship is working. We also work closely with other partners, including Sussex police. Can we do more to strengthen those relationships? Perhaps we can, and that is exactly what we intend to do in order to prevent any of these instances from happening again in the future.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s ideal solution, we are in agreement. We both want to see the number of hotels of this kind reduced and, ultimately, to see them closed, through better use of the national transfer scheme. However, that does require local authorities to come forward and offer places. We have therefore provided significant financial support, so there should be no financial barrier to local authorities’ investment in more accommodation and, indeed, more social workers and supporters.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to speed up both questions and answers, because a great many Members still need to get in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We do not want to use hotels in any part of the country; we want to tackle the issue at its source. I understand his constituents’ concerns with respect to the hotel in Wiltshire. As I understand it, a smaller number of individuals have been accommodated there than he has perhaps been advised and the local authority was informed in advance, but that does not diminish his constituents’ concerns. I am happy to talk to him to see what we can do to end that at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is profoundly counterproductive legislation, as illustrated by the fact that, since it was passed, the number of dangerous crossings has reached a record high. The Act includes the so-called inadmissibility clause, but the fact that the Government have failed to negotiate a returns agreement with a single European country means that just 21 out of 18,000 inadmissible people have been returned. Sending 300 asylum seekers to Rwanda will not even touch the sides of that 18,000. Does the Minister recognise the inadequacy of the legislation? Will he explain why the Government’s utterly self-defeating approach has led directly to the British taxpayer footing an extra bill of £500 million?

[Robert Jenrick]

First, whatever the inadequacies of the current system, they would be far worse if the Opposition were in power—in fact, the backlog of cases was 450,000 when the last Labour Government handed over to us. They have opposed every tough measure that we have taken, including the Nationality and Borders Act. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Act did not go far enough, I will welcome his support next year when we bring forward further and even tougher legislation. We will make sure that we secure the borders and control migration. He cannot see the difference between people genuinely fleeing persecution and economic migrants. He is testing the will of the British people; we will take action.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Seasonal Worker Visas: Sponsorship Certificates

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Compliance with the scheme is generally high, but I would not underestimate the number of individuals who do overstay or claim asylum. We have seen a significant number of those individuals this year. There have been some exceptional factors this year such as events in Russia and Ukraine that mean that some individuals would be inclined to stay here and claim asylum. The Home Office needs to take that seriously, because several hundred individuals claiming asylum is a significant number abusing the system as it is designed.

My hon. Friend is right to say that there will be occasions when any sector will need to rely on itinerate labour from overseas, but we must also remember that we have more than 5 million people in this country who are economically inactive, and we have a duty as a Government to help more of them into the workforce here so that they can lead fulfilling and productive lives and make a contribution to British society. That should be the first duty of the Government when designing our immigration policies.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Manston Update

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

May I extend my apologies, on behalf of the Department, to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—and, indeed, to you, Mr Speaker—for the delay in providing a copy of the statement? With your permission, however, I will now make a statement about the public health considerations in asylum accommodation.

As the House will know, on the morning of 19 November an individual who had arrived in the United Kingdom on 12 November, and who had been staying at the Manston processing site, sadly died in hospital. Initial test results for an infectious disease were negative, but a follow-up PCR test was positive. We must now await the post mortem results to determine the cause of death, and our thoughts are with the individual’s family.

There has been speculation about the wider health implications across the asylum accommodation system, so I wanted to come to the House to set out the facts, to outline the steps that have already been taken to protect migrants and the general public, and to reassure the public about the additional precautionary measures that we are now taking.

The control and testing of infectious diseases is led by the UK Health Security Agency and the Department for Health and Social Care. The Home Office continues to work closely with both, taking their advice on all these matters and following it. As part of our ongoing dialogue, the Home Secretary and I were updated on the situation over the weekend by Dame Jenny Harries of the UKHSA, who confirmed to us that 50 cases of diphtheria had been reported in asylum accommodation. It is important to emphasise that the UKHSA has made it clear that the risk to the wider UK population from onward transmission of diphtheria is very low, thanks in no small part to our excellent childhood immunisation programme, and also because the infection is typically passed on through close prolonged contact with a case. The UKHSA confirmed that it considers it likely that these cases developed before they entered the UK.

The Home Office has worked closely with the NHS and the UKHSA to identify and isolate anyone with a diphtheria infection. That includes providing diphtheria vaccinations and moving confirmed cases into isolation. While these robust processes and plans for a situation of this type are already in train, it is absolutely right for us now to be vigilant: that is what the public would expect, and that is what we are doing. There are, for instance, robust screening processes on the arrival of individuals at Western Jet Foil in Dover to identify proactively those with symptoms of diphtheria; “round-the-clock” health facilities at Manston, including emergency department consultants and paramedics; guidance in multiple languages on spotting the symptoms of diphtheria; and an enhanced diphtheria vaccination programme, offered to all those arriving at Manston. I can confirm that of those who arrived at the facility this weekend, 100% took up that vaccine offer. There is testing for those presenting with symptoms and for close contacts, and those testing positive are being isolated in a designated place.

Today we are going above and beyond the UKHSA baseline by instituting new guidance on the transportation and accommodation of individuals displaying diphtheria symptoms. From today, no one presenting with symptoms will progress into the asylum accommodation system. They will either remain at Manston, isolating for a short period, or they will travel to a designated isolation centre in secure transport, where they will be treated until deemed medically fit. This is a well-practised protocol from covid times.

We will also continue to ensure that all asylum accommodation providers are given access to the very latest public health advice from the UKHSA, and we will ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities for testing and isolating cases of infectious disease. We will continue working with the UKHSA to ensure that arrangements are of the highest standard and that the UKHSA has everything it needs from the Home Office. We are engaging with French counterparts to assess the state of infectious disease in the camps in northern France.

I fully understand and appreciate the concerns that have been raised, and I assure the House that the Home Office is acutely aware of our responsibility both to those in care and to the British public. For me, the Home Secretary and the Government as a whole, public health is paramount. We will take all steps necessary to ensure that the public are protected. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Migration

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the productive and constructive conversations that we have had. It is absolutely essential that the Home Office and partners such as Serco treat local authorities and Members of Parliament with respect and engage with them productively. Since my arrival in the Department, I have set in place protocols so that all Members of Parliament and local authorities will be notified in good time before hotel and other accommodation is procured, and so that we move to a better procedure, whereby there is effective and constructive engagement in the days prior to taking the accommodation.

It is worth saying, however, that those are the symptoms of the problem. The core of the issue is the fact that 40,000 people have chosen to cross the channel this year alone and that places immense strain on our system. That is what we need to tackle, that is what Government Members are committed to doing and that is what the Opposition refuse to address.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 14th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend has been following this exceptional case assiduously. I can say that the application is in its final stages of consideration, and the applicant will be notified of the outcome as soon as a decision has been made. I am of course happy to meet him if that would be helpful.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Holly Lynch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

A quick yes or no will do.

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. The extension was reviewed by the Government and, on the basis of the representations made to us by the industry, we extended it to April 2023. If he has heard other representations, I would be pleased to hear about them.

Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

First, may I praise my right hon. Friend, who is an exemplary Member of Parliament? It has been my privilege to work alongside him over the past 10 days. He has consistently raised concerns expressed by his constituents, and also our joint desire that Manston should operate as a humane and decent facility that provides compassionate care to those who arrive at the United Kingdom’s borders. The population is now back at an acceptable level, which is a considerable achievement. It is essential that it remains so, and he is right to say that the challenge is far from over. Last year, for various reasons, November proved to be the largest month of the year for arrivals in the UK, so we have to be aware of that and plan appropriately. We are doing just that, and we are ensuring that there is now further accommodation so that we can build up a sufficient buffer, so that those arriving at Manston stay there for the legal period of 24 hours or thereabouts, and are then swiftly moved to better and more appropriate accommodation elsewhere in the country.

I support my right hon. Friend’s view that Manston should always be a processing centre, not a permanent home for migrants arriving in the UK. I have taken note of his comment that he would like the temporary facilities there to be dismantled. I do not think that is possible right now, because the prudent thing is to ensure that we maintain the level of infrastructure that we have in case there is a significant increase in the number of migrants arriving in the weeks ahead, but it is certainly not my intention, or the Home Secretary’s intention, that Manston is turned into a permanent site for housing immigrants.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Stephen Kinnock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend and I were in contact about this issue over the weekend, and I know how strongly he feels. My first duty has been to ensure that Manston can operate in a legal and decent manner, and we are well on the way to achieving that. The second task is ensuring that the Home Office and its contractors procure accommodation—whether it be hotels, spot bookings or other forms of accommodation—in a sensible manner, taking into account many of the factors that my hon. Friend has just described, such as safeguarding, the impact on the local community and the likelihood of disorder, whether there is already significant pressure on that community, and whether it is a tourist hotspot. Those criteria need to be followed carefully.

My third priority, beyond that, is our exit from this hotel strategy altogether. It is not sustainable for the country to be spending billions of pounds a year on hotels. We now need to move rapidly to a point at which individuals are processed swiftly so that the backlog in cases falls and we disperse people fairly around the UK to local authority and private rented sector accommodation where appropriate. We also need to look into whether other, larger sites that provide decent but not luxurious accommodation might be available, so that we do not create a further pull factor for people to come to the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP Spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald

Cross-Channel Migrants: Manston Facility

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question and for his long-standing interest in this issue. He is absolutely right that part of a fair and robust asylum system is that individuals who come to the UK have their claims processed as quickly as possible, and that if they are denied, they are removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity. That will be a priority for me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We will review the backlog of cases to see how we can improve the productivity of the Home Office. I am told that 1,000 individuals are now working through those cases; it must be possible for us to reduce that backlog quickly. Other countries, such as France and Greece, are more productive and faster at processing claims, so I intend to review their processes to see what we can learn and whether we can bring those processes to bear in the UK in order to have a better system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It is disgraceful that this country is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on accommodating people in hotels, and we need to resolve that. To do that, we have to tackle the issue on multiple fronts: diplomatically, with our friends and neighbours; with robust enforcement in the channel; and by ensuring that those individuals who do come here are processed as swiftly as possible and are returned where they do not meet the standard to be granted asylum. That is exactly the approach that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I will be setting out, building on the statement that the new Prime Minister made in the summer in his 10-point plan for immigration.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Anne McLaughlin.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The point that my hon. Friend touches on is that the current planning system is not well regarded and is not producing the kinds of outcomes that we want; that is precisely why we want to reform and modernise it. We want to ensure that protections such as the green belt have the weight that they deserve in the planning system and that we can cut out speculative development unless it is approved by democratically elected local councillors at their sole discretion. The system that we are bringing forward does exactly that. Local authorities will need to have a plan; if they have a plan that is allocated land, there will be no need for issues such as speculative development and the five-year land supply.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The anti-corruption campaign Transparency International says that the Conservative party has become overly dependent on donations from developers. It is particularly concerned that Ministers failed to report the details of what they talked about to developers in over 300 meetings about which they simply disclosed generalisations such as “housing” or “planning”; it fears that that could amount to what it calls aggregate corruption. Will the Secretary of State now publish the full minutes of all those meetings so that the public can see exactly what Ministers agreed to do for their developer paymasters?

[Robert Jenrick]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, all meetings that Ministers have are correctly identified on the register of interests, but I have to say that he has been on quite a journey. One adviser who worked with him as leader of Lambeth Council has been left bemused: is this the same Champagne Steve he remembers meeting with developers? It is not just him who has invited charges of shameless hypocrisy; the Leader of the Opposition has received thousands of pounds of donations from developers, and the deputy leader of the Labour party caused a splash in the papers the other day for accepting £10,000 from developers for her leadership campaign.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Could the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the word “hypocrisy”? Hon. Members would never be hypocritical.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will certainly withdraw that, at your request, Mr Speaker. We can only imagine how much the deputy leader of the Labour party will be asking for when it comes to her impending leadership campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Robert Jenrick]

As a son of Wolverhampton, I know the city well and I wish it well. It is absolutely right that we need to build more homes in our town and city centres, and that is what the Government are doing. That is why we brought forward changes to permitted development, why we created the right to demolish and rebuild a building, and why we are bringing forward reforms to modernise the planning system. That is the way we protect the green belt for future generations. From Wolverhampton and the Black Country, one has to drive only a few miles into the most beautiful countryside of Shropshire and south Staffordshire. I want to preserve that, which is exactly what our planning reforms will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The Conservative party has always been the party of home ownership, which is a fundamental tenet of what we seek to achieve. We want to extend opportunity to all. We are bringing forward the Bill to help the next generation of young people on to the ladder. Of course, we are also doing brilliant things such as First Homes, whereby we offer discounts of up to 30% to 50% to local first-time buyers throughout the country. I was pleased to unveil the next site for those near my hon. Friend’s constituency in Cannock the other day.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend will know that such decisions are for the Chancellor to make. We have in place a reduced rate of VAT at 5% for certain residential renovations to encourage development and incentivise regeneration. However, she makes an important point that of course I would be happy to discuss with her. I thank her for hosting me in April, when it was great to see the town back open for business and still producing some of the best pies in Lancashire. She will know that I got into some trouble for saying that a particular shop in her constituency produced the best pies in the county, so all I will say on this occasion is that they are all pie-oneers and there is a slice for everyone if they visit Accrington.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to say, Handleys in Chorley needs to be tasted.

Antisemitic Attacks

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

No one could fail to be appalled by the disgraceful scenes of antisemitic abuse directed at members of the Jewish community in the past week. In Chigwell, Rabbi Rafi Goodwin was hospitalised after being attacked outside his synagogue. In London, activists drove through Golders Green and Finchley, both areas with large Jewish populations, apparently shouting antisemitic abuse through a megaphone. These are intimidatory, racist and extremely serious crimes. The police have since made four arrests for racially aggravated public order offences and have placed extra patrols in the St John’s Wood and Golders Green areas.

During Shavuot, as always, we stand with our Jewish friends and neighbours, who have sadly been subjected to a deeply disturbing upsurge in antisemitism in recent years, particularly on social media. Like all forms of racism, antisemitism has no place in our society. A lot of young British Jews are discovering for the first time that their friends do not understand antisemitism, cannot recognise it and do not care that they are spreading it. British Jews are not responsible for the actions of a Government thousands of miles away, but are made to feel as if they are. They see their friends post social media content that glorifies Hamas—an illegal terrorist organisation, whose charter calls for every Jew in the world to be killed. Today, the world celebrates International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. Under Hamas, people are murdered for being gay.

Every time the virus of antisemitism re-enters our society, it masks itself as social justice, selling itself as speaking truth to power. This Government are taking robust action to root it out. We are leading the way as the first Government to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and calling on others to do the same. As a result, nearly three quarters of local councils have adopted it. I have written to councils and universities that are still dragging their feet. They will shortly be named and shamed if they fail to act. All Members of Parliament, bar one, have signed up to it.

We are also doing our utmost to keep the Jewish community safe through the £65 million protective security grant to protect Jewish schools, synagogues and community buildings. We are working closely with the Community Security Trust to ensure victims can come forward and report attacks to the police.

We recognise that education is one of the most powerful tools we have for tackling antisemitism. We are proud to back the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Anne Frank Trust, among others, to ensure that we challenge prejudice from an early age. With the last holocaust survivors leaving us, we are also ensuring that future generations never forget where hatred can lead through—I hope—a new world-class holocaust memorial and learning centre next to the Palace of Westminster. It is currently awaiting the outcome of a planning inquiry. Some of the opposition to it has only served to make the case for why it is needed.

Today, the Government and, I hope, the whole House send a clear message of support and reassurance to our Jewish friends and neighbours. We seek a society where the UK’s largest established religions can live safely and freely, and can prosper, as an essential part of a nation that is confident in its diversity but ultimately strong in its unity.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very disappointed. I said at the beginning that the Secretary of State had three minutes, and he went on to take four minutes. Unfortunately, I do not make the rules of the House, but I have to stick to them. We now go to Robert Halfon, who is participating virtually, with two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is right to say that in London, as in many other parts of the country, relations between the Jewish community and the Muslim community are generally good, and inter-faith dialogue is generally strong. We have seen that very prominently in recent months, for example, in tackling covid-19, where both religious communities have come forward, been incredibly supportive and have worked together. I have seen that myself on many occasions. She is also right to say that councils have an important part to play. I have asked Sara Khan, as part of her work, to provide recommendations to us on how we can provide better advice to local councils on how to spot and tackle extremism; which groups they should not be interfacing with; and, where they do find extremists in their communities, what action they can take to root it out. Extremists should not be able to operate with impunity in plain sight in any part of this country.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now suspending the House for two minutes to enable necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

None the less, it is very poor that the hon. Gentleman would cast aspersions on a great public servant, whom I am proud to have working with me at the Department.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the Secretary of State needs to cast aspersions on where the hon. Gentleman got his question from; I think it relates to his own constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

On Saturday, I was delighted to announce that the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government will be opening a new dual headquarters in the great city of Wolverhampton, taking Ministers, senior civil servants and decision makers to the west midlands. We are leading efforts to level up all parts of the country, so it is only right that MHCLG brings decision makers to the communities that we seek to serve. This is about more than just the hundreds of jobs that we will bring to the region, with 800 MHCLG staff outside London by 2030—it is about pride, prestige, proximity to power, ensuring that more local voices are reflected in the creation of Government policy and playing our part in raising the stature of smaller cities such as Wolverhampton, which have been undervalued by Governments hitherto.

Earlier today, I was pleased to meet representatives from Wolverhampton, who included—you will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, as a supporter of Chorley FC— the mighty Wolverhampton Wanderers football club. All at the Ministry look forward to being an integral part of the great city of Wolverhampton and the wider west midlands.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Secretary of State means the team that scraped through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns regarding the new development at Horton Heath. As he says, I cannot comment on individual planning cases, but he is right that where a local council acts as the developer and master planner of a particular site it is incumbent upon it to ensure that it takes account of the views of statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency, of the local community and, indeed, of strong local Members of Parliament like him.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.

Council Tax: Government’s Proposed Increase

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Jenrick, you moved the amendment. I presume that you did not wish to. Could you withdraw the moving of the amendment?

[Robert Jenrick]

Yes, I am happy to withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

I will come on to the remarks of the LGA in a few minutes, if I may, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways: he cannot say that he is unhappy that we have imposed a cap that provides limited flexibility for local councils to decide of their own volition whether to increase council tax or not, and that he wants the cap lifted altogether so councils can increase it without limit, which seems to be the consensus among his own local government leaders.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could check in with his own council in Croydon, a council that in its consultation response to the Department on last year’s finance settlement said:

“we are disappointed that the ability to increase locally determined Council Tax has been reduced and that”

it

“can…only be increased by 2%”—

directly contradicting the hon. Gentleman.

How are these councils actually performing?  Croydon is a council that has found itself in £1.5 billion of debt, the only council to go bust in 2020, following the collapse of its housebuilding company, Brick by Brick, which may not have proved to be very good at building, but did prove to be extremely good at owing people a lot of money. The problem is that Labour in local government today is a catalogue of failure, dysfunction and waste.

In Nottingham, the party opposite blew £38 million on a failed energy company and made 230 of its employees redundant over Skype, before rewarding themselves with a backdated pay rise. Robin Hood Energy, they described it. Well, Robin Hood stole from the rich, but Labour’s Robin Hood just stole from everyone.

Up in Durham, the council, at the height of the pandemic, approved a new 3,500 square feet roof terrace on its £50 million county hall. Merton Council reportedly set up a building company with a £2 million investment, only not to deliver a single home. The council leader said it was designed to make money, but he had built in—I kid you not—jumping off points. It turns out that there was no parachute for local residents. Labour Warrington has debts of least £1.6 billion. After Bristol City Council’s socialist energy company went bust, Warrington’s own version, Together Energy, decided it would be a good idea to buy it and then, of course, got into financial difficulties itself. Hackney Council planted thousands of trees, only for them to die due to neglect—literally, Labour dead wood.

Even the Labour Local Government Front Bench keeps up the tradition, inexplicably taking two shadow Secretaries of State to do the job of one actual one. The shadow Housing Secretary freely admits to reporters that she has no policies. The shadow Local Government Secretary reportedly rebuked a colleague in the shadow Cabinet for trying to develop some. From what we have heard today, perhaps it would have been better if he had taken his own advice. His first attempt after nine months has fallen apart at the slightest interrogation. Labour councils themselves want to raise taxes locally at or above the flexibility we are proposing. Labour and Liberal Democrat councils consistently have higher council taxes than Conservative councils. Labour councils consistently underperform Conservative councils. Whether it is Croydon or Nottingham, they are consistently letting down their local residents.

[Robert Jenrick]

There are many examples I could cite from Birmingham City Council, but I do not think time allows me to do that.

Let us contrast this Government’s approach to protecting the interests of local tax payers with that of Labour. In one year alone, the last Labour Administration oversaw an increase in council tax by a staggering 12.9%. In comparison, as we have said, since 2010 this Government have implemented five years of council tax freezes, under which the great majority of councils did not increase council tax at all. In retail price index terms, council tax is lower than it was in 2010. We have introduced legislation to end crude and universal top-down capping, ensuring significant council tax increases can be implemented only through a referendum, giving local tax payers a right to veto excessive tax increases.

Across the country, Conservatives charge the lowest taxes. We see this on the ground wherever we look. In the Leader of the Opposition’s constituency, in Labour-run Camden, council tax is three times as high as in neighbouring Conservative-run Westminster. As I am sure the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) can testify, residents in Labour Merton and Lambeth pay almost twice the council tax of residents living just one or two roads away in Wandsworth. The Mayor of London has presided over a rise in council tax every year he was elected. To put that in perspective, when the Prime Minister was Mayor, he reduced the amount of council tax he charged Londoners by almost 11% during his tenure. In his last year alone, band D households in the 32 London boroughs saw their Greater London Authority council tax charges fall by 6.4%. Across the country, Conservative Mayors, whether Andy Street in the west midlands or Ben Houchen in Teesside, are continuing that tradition: low on taxes; high on leadership and delivery.

The provisional local finance settlement, which I announced to the House on 17 December, set out our proposals to increase the core spending power available to councils by 4.5%, a significant and real-terms increase. That comes on top of a 4.5% real-terms increase this year—a settlement the Labour party considered so good that, for the first time in living memory, it did not even oppose it. In total, we expect core spending power for English councils to increase from £49 billion this year to £51.2 billion next year, in line with last year’s increases and recognising the resources that councils need to meet extraordinary pressures while maintaining the essential services they provide.

The measures I proposed will provide an additional £1 billion of funding for adult and children’s social care. We have also confirmed that we intend to roll forward last year’s £1.4 billion of social care grant and continue the 2020-21 improved better care funding at £2.1 billion. We are considering responses to the settlement consultation and will return to the House to set out the final funding package for local government in the very near future.

The shadow Secretary of State has suggested to the House today that this Government have not delivered on our commitment to communities during the pandemic. This past year has seen the largest ever injection of in-year cash to the local government sector. Taken together, we have provided over £36 billion of support to and through local government in response to the pandemic. To put that in context, in 2019-20 the entire council tax take for the whole of England was £31.6 billion—less than we have provided in year to and through local councils this year alone. Local authorities have received £8 billion in direct funding, with a further £3 billion extra already announced for 2021-22, and we forecast adding an additional £1.2 billion to that from schemes to compensate for lost council income from sales, fees and charges.

That takes the total additional funding provided to local authorities to over £12 billion, £2 billion more than the sum the Local Government Association called for at the start of the pandemic—the sum the shadow Secretary of State himself estimated to be the cost to councils of covid at the time. We know today that we have provided £1 billion more than local government has self-reported to my Department as covid-related costs throughout that period—£1 billion more than even councils have told us they have spent and need. Let us be clear that when the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and I promised to support local councils and the communities that rely on them, we meant that promise, and we have delivered on that promise.

Since the start of the pandemic, we have mobilised our welfare system like never before, with generous income support schemes, mortgage holidays, support for renters, a £500 million local authority hardship fund, a £170 million covid winter grant scheme and much-needed help with utilities. To support local economies, we have provided £12 billion in grants to thousands of businesses the length and breadth of the country, and a business rates holiday worth around £10 billion to local retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. We have operated a major reimbursement scheme for lost council income, recovering billions of pounds from car parks, leisure centres, theatres and tourist attractions—money that will go to help councils move forward and recover.

That is not even to mention £4.6 billion of un-ring-fenced grant support to councils, £1 billion through the infection control fund, £1 billion through the contain outbreak management grant and £300 million via the test and trace service support grant. I could go on and on: 5 million food boxes delivered; 2 million shielded people protected through councils; and, of course, 33,000 rough sleepers brought in off the streets under the world-class Everyone In programme, and given the chance to rebuild their lives. That is central Government and local government working together through a unique pandemic to support millions of people across the country.

Local government has been—and remains—at the forefront of our response to covid-19. This Government are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with local government in its hour of greatest need: with the officers, the teachers, the refuse collectors, the care workers, and the environmental health officers enforcing our regulations. For all that they have done, we salute them and thank them on behalf of our communities and our country. We owe them the stability, certainty and flexibility to plan for a brighter future ahead, and that is exactly what we have done, what we will do and what we will always do for them.

Our communities have never needed good council leadership more than they do today. Whether it is in Croydon or in Nottingham, across the country the reputation of too many Labour councils is, frankly, rotten. We take no lectures from the Labour party, which presided over eye-watering increases in council tax throughout its time in office, and whose economic mismanagement in local government has been laid painfully bare for all to see. The reports of those councils—Croydon and Nottingham—spell it out: mismanagement; waste; poor public services; and, yes, higher council taxes. There is a toxic legacy of debt and dysfunction, not just for today but for future generations. And where, frankly, was the shadow Secretary of State? Where was his denunciation of Croydon and Nottingham? He was silent. He was invisible. His famous Twitter account was as uncharacteristically quiet as that of Donald Trump—no leadership when the country needed it.

While we have reduced council tax in real terms under our watch, Labour has increased it time and again. While we have been clear that we have a plan to protect local councils and that we care about local council taxpayers, Labour has perfected the art of saying nothing at all. Frankly, council taxpayers across the country deserve better than this absurd and hypocritical debate from the Labour party, and they will have the opportunity to say so in May.

[Mr Speaker]

For the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary of State has not moved the selected amendment. The Question before the House remains that already proposed, as on the Order Paper. I remind hon. Members that a time limit is in effect for Back Benchers. The countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will operate. I am going to start with a four-minute limit. I call Peter Dowd, up in Liverpool.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

As I said, I was delighted to announce over the Christmas period the 72 places that have benefited from the future high streets fund, but I appreciate that hundreds of high streets throughout the country will be thinking about their own futures. We will very shortly bring forward the levelling-up fund, from which all parts of the country, including my hon. Friend’s in Hampshire, will have the opportunity to benefit. I also direct my hon. Friend to look at the planning reforms that we have brought forward, because it is not simply about more public investment; we also want to support entrepreneurs, small businesspeople and small builders through the right to regenerate, the changes to the use-class orders and the new licensing arrangements—such as the ability to have markets, keep marquees outside pubs and have more tables and chairs outdoors—that I would like to be put on a permanent footing so that the al fresco dining we saw in the summer can be replicated this year.

[Mr Speaker]

And hopefully Chorley will be included in the Secretary of State’s high streets fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend has already secured, as he says, the town deal for Ashfield, and the good news over the Christmas period is that it will also benefit from the high streets fund. We have been supporting Eastwood under this Government. The redevelopment of Mushroom Farm has received £160,000 for new commercial space for small and medium-sized enterprises and entrepreneurs in his constituency, but I would be very happy to meet him and see what more we might be able to do, so that all the investment that we have brought to Ashfield is also spread to Eastwood.

[Mr Speaker]

I bet they have been kept in the dark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady misrepresents even what the Public Accounts Committee had to say about the towns fund; I urge her to re-read what it said and not to be so liberal with her language. I can assure her that the high streets fund used a 100% competitive process, and Ministers had no say in choosing the places selected.

If fault lies anywhere, I am afraid it lies with the hon. Lady’s local council, because despite our giving it hundreds of thousands of pounds to produce plans, and despite the no doubt great need in the community, it failed to put forward proposals that met the Treasury’s basic benefit-cost ratio value-for-money standard. That is a great pity. The people of her local community have missed out, but if the blame lies anywhere, it lies with her local council.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think we have got the message.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend will know that my Department is working closely with the residents of Northpoint to ensure that they have access to funding. They are part of the building safety fund and will benefit from that £1.6 billion. He is right also to draw attention to the waking watch issue, which is increasingly a national scandal in itself; this is a rip-off. We have published research that demonstrates that some operators of these businesses—the contractors—are charging outrageous fees for very little. We will be reporting that to the regulatory authorities and we hope that they will clamp down on these practices as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In fairness to the Secretary of State, questions are meant to be short and punchy—we are getting very stuck. Come on, Secretary of State, I am sure you have an answer.

[Robert Jenrick]

The situation in Croydon is deeply concerning. There does appear to have been catastrophic financial mismanagement. Ultimately, it is the people of Croydon who will suffer as a result of that failed council. The council has decided to issue a section 114 notice. We will consider the findings of the urgent review, which concludes later this month.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

As we have set out time and again, we are committed to net-zero homes—we do not want to see any new home built in this country that needs expensive retrofitting in future. If anyone thinks that the Labour party is going to deliver that or indeed any other strategy for homes in this country, they will be “sorely disappointed”—those are the words of The Guardian, not myself. The hon. Lady said that it would be years before she was able to bring forward any plans for housing whatsoever. What a sad indictment of the Labour party—the party of Herbert Morrison and Clement Attlee. We are planning to build a million new homes in this country; the Labour party’s plans are as empty and vacuous as a Wendy house blown over in the first gust of autumn wind.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say that the questions are pretty short and the answers are meant to be pretty short as well? I say to the Secretary of State that I am going to run the whole list of questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. We are certainly open to further measures that we can take to make the lives of small businesspeople across the country easier as they seek to recover their businesses and livelihoods after the pandemic. In particular, I can give him reassurance that the existing legal framework that enables one to put up a temporary structure for 28 days is being extended to 56 days during 2020 to enable, for example, a pub to put up a marquee, a restaurant to do the same, or a market to operate for longer than it would ordinarily do—all designed to help local businesses to prosper in the weeks and months to come.

[Mr Speaker]

Question 16 has been withdrawn, so we come to the shadow Secretary of State, Steve Reed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Can I say once again how grateful for and proud I am of the work of local councils and homelessness and rough sleeping charities across the country and the remarkable effort that they have made together to protect rough sleepers during the pandemic? That has undoubtedly saved hundreds, if not thousands, of people’s lives. We saw that in the recent Office for National Statistics figures that were published, showing that 16 rough sleepers had died in this country during the pandemic. Each of those deaths, of course, is a tragedy, but that number is far lower than that of any other major developed country. We are making £105 million of immediate support available for local areas to fund exactly the kind of interventions that my hon. Friend refers to.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to get through topicals, so can we speed up a little?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The Chancellor announced the other day our £400 million brownfield fund, which will support projects across the country, and our planning reforms that we have already announced, such as the right to demolish a vacant building and turn it into new housing, are exactly designed for brownfield sites.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.

Covid-19: Housing Market

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

Moving home can be a life-changing moment for many among us. For young families spreading their wings after a new arrival, for young people leaving their parents’ home for the first time, or for working people changing towns or cities to start a new job, moving home means planting your roots; laying your foundations. A home is more than four walls and a roof—it is a sanctuary, a form of protection, and a link to your community.

We know that people’s homes are at the heart of their own personal stories, and throughout the course of this emergency, we have, by necessity, put many of those stories on hold, to protect our communities and to save lives. When the essential “Stay at home” message was announced, we changed the rules so that people could move home only if they thought it was “reasonably necessary”. For many people, this has put life on hold, with this most relevant and essential industry in a state of suspended animation. Over 450,000 sales have been stuck in the system, unable to be progressed—not to mention the substantial number of rentals that have not gone ahead. Every month, 300,000 tenancies come up for renewal, a proportion of which result in people moving home. The pressure to move has, for some, become acute, with profound legal, financial and health implications.

We made that decision in order to keep the country safe, but as we move into the next phase of our covid response and embark on our path to reopen, restart and renew the economy, we recognise the need to let people get back to living their lives. That is why today I am announcing a comprehensive, clear, and coherent plan to reopen the housing market and to restart the construction industry. With immediate effect, we are lifting the temporary freeze on home-moving, meaning that, as long as they are not shielding or self-isolating, anyone can move, any time and for any reason.

The industry is broad, and has many moving parts, so we want to be clear: each of the building blocks of the buying and selling process are now back in business, as long as it can be done safely. Here, then, is our plan for the reopening, restarting, and renewing of the housing market and the construction industry: estate agent offices can now reopen, removal companies can get moving again, surveyors, conveyancers and valuers can go back to work, and show homes on sites can reopen.

It is crucial that these changes happen safely and that we continue to tread with caution, to control the virus and to protect the public. This means that as these businesses reopen they will need to adapt their practices—for instance, with virtual viewings where possible and cleaning thoroughly after viewings and when moving. I have published detailed guidance, informed by public health advice, to explain how this can be achieved, building on the existing safer working guidance, with all parties observing hygiene measures and social distancing guidelines.

For each of the other elements that make up the wider construction industry—a sector that employs more than 2 million people—the same applies. If people are self-isolating or have coronavirus, they should of course not be moving or going back to work. All parties involved in home buying and selling should prioritise agreeing amicable arrangements to change move dates for individuals in this group.

This is the most radical restarting of an industry in the first phase of our national recovery road map. It was not an easy decision to make. With few, if any, transactions, there is no visibility and no precedent with which to accurately judge the state of the housing market, but I do know that in every economic recovery in modern British history the housing market has been key, so let me be clear to all who work in the sector, have started a business in it, have invested in it, or rely upon it: I am doing everything I can to help the industry bounce back.

A healthy housing market means more than buying and selling houses; it requires building them too, but covid-19 has had a profound impact on housebuilding, with activity on sites down by around 90% since this time last year. I am delighted to see so many construction companies back at work already, and I am pleased to be supporting their efforts by today announcing the launch of a safe working charter with the Home Builders Federation. Those working on site should feel confident that their essential jobs are also safe jobs.

I am taking further steps to support safe housebuilding by allowing more flexible working hours on construction sites, where appropriate and with local checks and balances. I am allowing sites to apply to extend their working hours, again with immediate effect. Varied start and finish times will make it easier for sites to observe social distancing, will take pressure off public transport, particularly in our core cities, and will keep Britain building.

The planning system, too, must be able to operate safely and efficiently during this time, which means, as with many other sectors, making more use of digital technology. I want the Planning Inspectorate to be at the forefront of this work—it is good to see the inspectorate now undertaking its first virtual hearings. I am asking it to make all hearings virtual within weeks. We are going to get the planning system going again and bring it into the digital age at the same time.

As we look to the future, we must remember that the prospects of Britain’s housing market is key to our economy: when this sector succeeds, we all succeed. This is what shapes our vision for the housing market: more homes, safer homes, homes of higher quality, more beautiful homes, homes of all types and tenures, for all people, rooted in and at the heart of their communities. Today, we reopen, restart and we renew the housing market and the construction industry to protect lives, save jobs and refresh and renew our economy.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome Thangam Debbonaire to her new job. She has up to five minutes.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you Mr Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement.

The Government said that they would do “whatever it takes” to get the country through the covid crisis and protect the most vulnerable. The Opposition want the Government to succeed. Lives, livelihoods and homes are on the line. In a spirit of constructive co-operation, we have scrutinised plans carefully and offered suggestions and challenges when appropriate, to try to help to bring down infections and the numbers of people who are infected or who are tragically dying, and to help people manage financially. Sometimes the Government have heeded our calls, sometimes not. I would like them to consider these.

Today’s announcement provides welcome news for some—and of course we all want new homes to be built —but it leaves more unanswered housing questions, which urgently need Government attention to keep people safe at work and at home, as we do not have community testing, a cure or a vaccine and there are still problems with personal protective equipment. What protection will there be for people who rent, if a landlord or an estate agent wants to show a prospective buyer or new tenant around? What will the Government do to help those trapped by the cladding and leasehold scandals at this time? What discussions have the Government had with the trade unions? There was no mention of that in the statement. What advice do the Government have for anyone who feels that their workplace or construction site is not safe?

This crisis has taught us that if anyone is struggling, we are all affected. The announcement focused on those who want to move home, but it ignored those who are at risk of being forced to do so. The Secretary of State talked about show homes, but not about people with no home. We have shown that when we work together we can virtually eliminate street homelessness in days. There must be no going back, but people in emergency accommodation face that. Will the Government work with councils and homelessness organisations on the issue of how to provide and pay for a “housing first” approach, so that we can end street homelessness for good this year?

The Secretary of State said that he knew that homes were sanctuaries, but there is no plan for what happens when the temporary ban on evictions ends. We need to prevent people from falling into arrears, so will the Government heed Labour’s calls to fill gaps in the financial support schemes? Will he guarantee that the local housing allowance will stay at 30% of market rent? Will he consider raising it further until the crisis eases?

People who are struggling with their rent are worried about what will happen when the ban lifts. The Government say that they are

“working with the Master of the Rolls to widen the existing ‘pre-action protocol’ on possession proceedings for Social Landlords, to include private renters and to strengthen its remit”.

That is not enough, so will the Secretary of State consider Labour’s proposal to halt section 8 evictions on the grounds of arrears caused by the lockdown?

In March, Ministers said that they would provide

“whatever funding is needed for councils to get through this and come out the other side”.

That pledge has been repeated by the Secretary of State. This week, however, he told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that councils should not

“labour under a false impression”

that all costs would be reimbursed. Which is it? Will the Secretary of State honour his original commitment to councils?

The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), appeared to require local authorities to provide accommodation for people with no recourse to public funds but without funding, leading to confusion and people being left out. Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is specific funding for housing people with no recourse to public funds?

Councils cannot borrow for revenue spending or run deficits. If they cannot balance the books they have to stop spending. They are currently £10 billion short—a fifth of council spending. They could close every library, leisure centre and children’s centre, turn off all the streetlights, and lock the gates to parks, and they would still be billions of pounds short. They would have to make cuts to social care and public health at this time. Will the Secretary of State ensure that councils are fully recompensed for housing and other costs in this crisis?

Finally, during the crisis we have all become aware of people in overcrowded, unsafe homes, who are unable to self-isolate and worried about the rent. We know how bad it is for mental and physical health when families have no outside space. The Secretary of State says that he wants “more homes, safer homes, and higher quality, more beautiful homes”, but he does not say how he will ensure that they are higher quality, or safe, or beautiful. He could have decided to invest in high-quality, safe, beautiful, socially owned, zero-carbon, truly affordable housing. That would capture the national spirit and turn it into building our future.

Instead, the Government have focused on private house sales and even today asked councils to allow developers to defer section 106, the community infra- structure levy, which is likely to reduce the numbers of new social and affordable homes. Will the Secretary of State please work with the Treasury, housing associations, local authorities and the building industry to invest in high-quality, truly affordable social housing?

Our broken housing system has been brutally exposed. Key workers we applaud each week live in poor housing. They have been left behind too long. We must not go back to business as usual. We must solve the housing crisis for all our heroes and for our country.

[Robert Jenrick]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role and look forward to working with her constructively in the weeks and months ahead. I am pleased that she supports the overwhelming direction of our statement today, and recognises the importance of the housing industry and construction in this country. She asked a number of questions and I will endeavour to answer as many as I can.

On the important question about building safety, I have been clear from the onset of the crisis that that work should continue. That was, in fact, opposed by many on the Opposition Benches, who said it was too risky, but it was the right decision to encourage ACM cladding and other essential building safety works to continue. I am pleased to say that it is now gradually starting to begin again. I welcome Mayors such as the Mayor of London, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Mayor of Birmingham coming together to support that in our combined pledge.

On rough sleeping, I pay tribute to everybody who has been involved in the tremendous national effort so far, bringing 90% of the people sleeping rough on our streets at the onset of the crisis into safer accommodation. Now, we are in the next phase of that challenge. I do not underestimate how difficult that will be, protecting those individuals while they remain in that accommodation during the lockdown and then preparing for them to move into more suitable long-term arrangements with the wraparound care that they need and deserve. That will be a true national effort involving charities, councils and businesses across the country.

With respect to renters, today’s announcement is very much about renters. Every month, 300,000 tenancies come up for renewal. Many of those individuals need or want to move house. Today will enable them to do just that and to do it safely, which is the most important consideration.

On the guidance I have published today, it sets out that physical viewings of homes, whether for sale or for rent, can go ahead, but those will need to be done in accordance with social distancing guidelines. In most cases, that will mean that the tenant or the homeowner will not be present in the property. They will be in the garden or will have gone out for their daily exercise. If they are in the home for whatever reason, they will be in a different room and ensuring that they are 2 metres apart from the individuals who are looking around the property. That is the right thing to do.

On the concern about people being evicted from their properties, as the hon. Lady knows we have changed the law to have a moratorium on evictions, so that no possession proceeding can continue. That will go up until June, at which point I, as Secretary of State, have the ability to extend that if we need to. We will be taking that decision very carefully. We will also be proceeding with the pre-action protocol, working with the Master of the Rolls to ensure that that provides an added degree of protection for those individuals. I do not support the Labour proposal, which is to encourage people not to pay rent and to build up potentially unmanageable degrees of debt, so that in six, nine or 12 months’ time, their credit rating would be shredded and they would be in a very difficult financial position. We are developing a much more credible plan to protect renters and to help to shield them through this crisis.

Finally, with respect to councils’ finances, I said we would stand behind councils and give them the funding that they need, and we are doing exactly that. Today, the Prime Minister has announced an extra £600 million, bringing the total investment in our councils to £3.8 billion in just two months.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go over to the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am sure that thousands of people in Stafford, and across the country, will have been in a state of limbo and unable to move home. This announcement today will make a big difference to their lives and to the local economy in Staffordshire. With respect to the guidelines, they are clear, as I have already said, that people need to respect social distancing when in others’ properties. We are encouraging virtual viewings, which can be more sophisticated and may come at a cost, or can be as simple as the agent or homeowner producing a video on their smartphone and making it available to anyone interested in the property before they visit. With respect to show homes, we are strongly encouraging people to attend by appointment only to avoid unnecessary speculative visits.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go over to Sheffield to the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue at length on a number of occasions, and he has been assiduous in campaigning to break this deadlock. It is extremely unfortunate that before the coronavirus crisis house building in the Solent area was essentially paused because of the issue he described. I have been working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England to bring forward guidelines and to bring the parties together, because too many people’s livelihoods depend on this and we need to move forward. I hope that those guidelines are now available and will ensure that we continue to work with his local council and others to get the industry moving in the Solent area.

[Mr Speaker]

That’s all for now, folks. I will suspend the House for 15 minutes, until 1.53 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Our binmen and women have done a great job. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and they deserve to have both the advice that they need and the protective equipment where that is required. Public Health England has published guidance for those working in the sector, recommending that where the 2 metre distance rule cannot be adhered to, staff should make sure that the windows of their vehicles are open for ventilation, and they should wash their hands for 20 seconds or longer before getting in and out of the vehicle, or use hand sanitiser where handwashing is not possible. We will ensure that councils follow up and adhere to that advice so that those key workers are properly protected as they go about their work.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go across to scenic Lancashire with Kate Hollern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am very grateful to parish councils, their members and their clerks for the vital work they are also doing to support communities. They harness the networks of familiarity and loyalty upon which society is built and have the relationships to support the vulnerable. I can announce today that as we bring forward the allocations for the £1.6 billion of funding, there will be a significant increase in the amount of money paid to district councils. More than 70% of district councils will receive an additional £1 million and in many cases significantly more, and I ask those district councils to work with their parish councils where appropriate to ensure that a fair share of that funding flows through to parish councils, if they are in financial distress.[Official Report, 29 April 2020, Vol. 675, c. 4MC.]

[Mr Speaker]

We now go across to Clive Betts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

We are really proud of the work that local councils have done in England, and there is a similar workstream in Scotland to bring people off the streets and offer them safer accommodation. Today more than 90% of rough sleepers within England are in safer accommodation, such as hotels. A huge amount of work has now to be done, having brought those people in, to care for them and then to work through what the next steps are, so that they can move on to better accommodation and greater support in the future. With respect to no recourse to public funds, the Government’s position and the law have not changed, but councils are able to use their discretion within the law to support those individuals, as they would in the normal way.

[Mr Speaker]

I must explain that Minister Clarke has not been able to get connected and I must thank Minister Chris Pincher for stepping in—I now call him to answer the substantive question tabled by Yvonne Fovargue.

National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a problem as long as we do not forget the great county of Lancashire. [Laughter.]

[Robert Jenrick]

Very good. I re-emphasise not only that there is a £100,000 threshold, but that this is about fairness. All sportspeople who have a contractual right to a testimonial, which is commonplace, will have been paying income tax and national insurance on the benefit from that for some time, so this measure merely provides a greater degree of certainty and fairness. Of course, some of the clubs organising such testimonials will be smaller, or they may involve testimonial committees, so providing them with the clearest possible advice will be helpful. It will also ensure that there is no doubt in their minds when doing a good thing that is in the interests of players who may be at the end of their careers or may have been injured prematurely.

From April 2020, non-contractual and non-customary testimonials arranged by third parties will now be subject to NICs above a £100,000 threshold. A third-party testimonial committee will be liable to pay the class 1A employer NICs charge on the amount raised above £100,000. These types of testimonials will not be subject to employee NICs, to ensure that the sportsperson is not adversely affected. Again, as with the termination awards measure, we have chosen to act in relation to employer national insurance contributions, not employee contributions, so there remains a benefit to individuals in that respect.

I reassure hon. Members that the vast majority of sportspeople will be unaffected by the Bill because they will not exceed the £100,000 threshold. As I have said, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that only around 220 testimonials occur each year, most of which will remain unaffected as they either fall below the £100,000 level or are part of a previous contractual arrangement, which is commonplace in most sports.

Although the measure will bring in negligible revenue—we estimate less than £3 million a year—its value comes in the alignment and simplification of the tax and NICs treatment of sporting testimonials and clarity for those taking part in testimonials or those on sporting testimonial committees. Sporting bodies and other relevant stakeholders are expecting the changes, because our intention to make them has been known since at least 2015. As the changes required an NICs Bill, there has been a short delay, but that is what we are attempting to do today.

In conclusion, it may be a small and narrowly drawn Bill, but it is none the less important and includes two measures that simplify our tax code. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I would like greater simplification of the tax system, but that journey must begin with single steps, and we are taking one of those today in simplifying the tax code in two significant respects that will have real-world consequences for individuals, who will benefit from a simpler system. The Bill will also raise a significant sum for public services and support our continued efforts to improve the public finances. It brings the national insurance and tax treatment of termination awards and sporting testimonials into closer alignment, and I commend it to the House.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir George Howarth)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 69 to 77 stand part.

Amendment 10, in clause 78, page 51, line 32, after “may”, insert—

“(subject to section (Review of expenditure implications of Part 3))”.

Antecedent to new clause 10.

Clause 78 stand part.

Amendment 14, in clause 89, page 66, line 30, at end insert—

“(1A) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than the date provided for in subsection (1C), lay before the House of Commons a statement of the circumstances (in relation to the outcome of negotiations with the EU) that give rise to the exercise of the power.

(1B) The statement under subsection (1A) must be accompanied by—

(a) an assessment of the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of those powers and the circumstances giving rise to them;

(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects if—

(i) a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the EU had been agreed to, and

(ii) the United Kingdom had remained a member of the European Union;

(c) a statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the assessment under paragraph (a) and the comparison under paragraph (b).

(1C) The date provided for in this subsection is—

(a) a date which is no less than seven days before the date on which a Minister of the Crown proposes to make a motion for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and after the passing of this Act, or

(b) a date which is no less than seven days before the date on which a Minister of the Crown proposes to make a motion for the purposes of section 13(6)(a) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and after the passing of this Act, or

(c) a date which is no less than seven days before the date on which a Minister of the Crown proposes to make a motion for the purposes of section 13(8)(b)(i) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and after the passing of this Act, or

(d) the date on which this Act is passed,

whichever is the earliest.”

This amendment requires the first use of the powers intended to modify tax legislation in the event of a no deal Brexit to be accompanied by a statement of the circumstances and a comparative analysis of their impact, accompanied by an OBR assessment.

Amendment 15, page 66, line 30, at end insert—

“(1A) No regulations under this section may be made until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid a statement before the House of Commons setting out—

(a) a list of the powers in relevant tax legislation that the Treasury has acquired since June 2016 in connection with the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union,

(b) a list of the powers in relevant tax legislation the Treasury expects to acquire if—

(i) a withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the European Union have been agreed to, or

(ii) the United Kingdom has left the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement.

(c) a description of any powers conferred upon the House of Commons (whether by means of the approval or annulment of statutory instruments or otherwise) in connection with the exercise of the powers set out in subsection (b).”

Amendment 22, page 66, line 30, at end insert—

“(1A) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than a week after the passing of this Act and before exercising the power in subsection (1), lay before the House of Commons a review of the following matters—

(a) the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of those powers and of the outcome of negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union giving rise to their exercise;

(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects if a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the EU had been agreed to;

(c) any differences in the exercise of those powers in respect of—

(i) Great Britain, and

(ii) Northern Ireland;

(d) any differential effects in relation to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) in relation between—

(i) Great Britain, and

(ii) Northern Ireland.”

Amendment 7, page 67, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) No statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would make clause 89 (Minor amendments in consequence of EU withdrawal) subject to affirmative procedure.

Amendment 20, page 67, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the United Kingdom has left the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement.”

Amendment 2, page 67, line 13, at end insert—

“(7) This section shall, subject to subsection (8), cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(8) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (7).

(9) No regulations may be made under subsection (8) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”

Clause 89 stand part.

Amendment 8, in clause 90, page 67, line 16, after “may”, insert—

“(subject to subsections (1A) and (1B))”

This amendment is antecedent to Amendment 9.

Amendment 9, page 67, line 18, at end insert—

“(1A) Before proposing to incur expenditure under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons—

(a) a statement of the circumstances (in relation to negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union) that give rise to the need for such preparatory expenditure, and

(b) an estimate of the expenditure to be incurred.

(1B) No expenditure may be incurred under subsection (1) unless the House of Commons comes to a resolution that it has considered the statement and estimate under subsection (1A) and approves the proposed expenditure.”

This amendment would require a statement on circumstances (in relation to negotiations) giving rise to the need for, as well as an estimate of the cost of, preparatory expenditure to introduce a charging scheme for greenhouse gas allowances. The amendment would require a Commons resolution before expenditure could be incurred.

Clause 90 stand part.

New clause 10—Review of expenditure implications of Part 3—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expenditure implications of commencing Part 3of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) No regulations may be made by the Commissioners under section 78(1) unless the review under subsection (1) has been laid before the House of Commons.”

This new clause would require a review within 6 months of the expenditure implications of introducing a carbon emissions tax. It would prevent Part 3 coming into effect until such a review had been laid before the House of Commons.

New clause 11—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 2)—

“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).

(2) Those provisions are—

(a) sections 68 to 78,

(b) section 89, and

(c) section 90.

(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—

(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,

(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft,

(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”

This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of this Act – alongside new clauses 9, 13 and 15.

New clause 17—Review of the carbon emissions tax (No. 2)—

“Within twelve months of the commencement of Part 3 of the Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the carbon emissions tax to determine—

(a) the effect of the carbon emissions tax on the United Kingdom’s carbon price in the context of non-participation in the European Union emissions trading scheme, and

(b) the effect of the carbon emissions tax on the United Kingdom’s ability to comply with its fourth and fifth carbon budgets.”

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

In these parts of the Bill, we make sensible preparations for our exit from the European Union. While right hon. and hon. Members across the House may well disagree on Brexit, I would hope that all would wish to see us prepare as carefully as possible so that we can maintain the stability of the tax system; provide as much certainty for the taxpayer as possible; in respect of carbon pricing, meet our commitments to the environment; and do all those things in all eventualities, including in the event of no deal, which is clearly not the Government’s preference but remains a possibility.

At Budget, the Government announced essential provisions to ensure that the tax system can continue to function in any outcome.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Minister has got time to address the issues, and I am sure that that is where he will take us now.

[Robert Jenrick]

That was unfair, because I am addressing the points that have been raised by Members from all parts of the House. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) may not like the answers, but I am providing them. With respect to the digital services tax—it is a tax that has been mentioned by numerous Members across the House—we are the first major country to do this, and it will raise in excess of £1.5 billion, ensuring that, in our thriving economy, our tech-friendly economy, those who generate value from UK users will pay a fair contribution to tax. We look forward to publishing more information and to the consultation on that, which, clearly, hon. Members may wish to take part in.

We chose in this Budget to invest in the long-term economic infrastructure of the country—a subject that has been raised by a number of my colleagues—raising investment levels in this country to the highest sustained level in my lifetime. That is the mark of a mature economy, which is not just spending everything on immediate consumption, but spending money for long-term investment. Public capital investment in this country will be £460 million a week higher under this Government than it was under the previous Labour Government. We have heard some of the ways that we will spend that. We will spend it by increasing investment in our roads—in every type of road. A number of colleagues from across the House—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Jones, you are testing my patience. You did say, “Call me old-fashioned”, well, old-fashioned usually has values with it, and you are not showing the best values right now. Come on, Minister.

[Robert Jenrick]

We are investing in a whole range of different infrastructure projects, which will make a huge difference to the future of this country, from the productivity pinchpoints to investing in potholes. We did hear from a number of Members today a slightly snobbish attitude to investing in potholes, but these things matter to ordinary people. They matter to people in my northern constituency of Newark. They matter to people in Walsall, in Halesowen, in Stoke-on-Trent, in Mansfield and in towns that we have heard about here and, in fact, in towns across the whole country, including in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Well, you have not read the Red Book, because we put £10 million—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful if you both addressed the House without having a personal debate between the two of you. Come on, Minister.

[Robert Jenrick]

We have heard in this debate that this is a Budget for high streets and town centres. With great respect, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said that we had borrowed one point of the Labour party’s five-point plan for the high street, and that is true, we did—we are committing to pilot a register of empty shops—but we looked at the other four points in the plan and, frankly, they were thin gruel. We decided that we could do better, and we have.

We are providing a 30% discount to small businesses, affecting 90% of our retailers across the country, and we have created a £675 million future high streets fund—a competitive fund for people across the House and across the country to bid into to secure between £5 million and £25 million to transform their towns. I was surprised that Opposition Members repeatedly criticised the idea of having more homes in town centres, because that is not what the public say. We want vibrant communities in our town centres, and we want to make it cheaper and easier to create shops, workplaces and homes there.

We also heard about great ideas in the Budget. We have to grow the economy in all parts of the country. For example, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) about the special economic area that we are creating in Teesside, working in partnership with the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). That has the potential to transform investment in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I can assure you that that is not a point of order, but you have got it on the record.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman later, but time does not allow now. As he knows, the Budget does commit to a north Wales growth deal. I shall be happy to discuss that further with him.

To conclude, this is a Budget that looks to the future. It is optimistic about our economic potential. It invests in the science and innovation that will drive the economy forward in the years ahead. We have a choice: either we can follow the tired ideas of Opposition Front Benchers, pursuing policies that we know have failed in the past, a ship sailing on yesterday’s wind, or, like Conservative Members, we can look to the future with confidence, and we can champion entrepreneurship, innovation and the wealth creators in society. This is a Budget that seeks to inspire a new generation to succeed, to excel and to prosper, with policies that will make the economy and the country stronger. I urge Members in all parts of the House to support the Budget in the Lobby tomorrow.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mike Freer.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

The Economy

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

In the Treasury we try to deal in facts, rather than in comments, and the effect of reducing corporation tax has been an increase in revenue.

The Chief Secretary and other Conservative Members have said that we must make the case once again for free markets—something we thought we might never have to do again. However, as Margaret Thatcher and, I think, Tony Benn—an unusual pairing—used to say, “There are no final victories in politics, and if you want to continue to win important arguments, you have to keep making them and restating them over and over again.” The case for free markets is threatened as never before by the hard-left, heirloom policies and personalities of Labour Front Benchers. As someone who used to work in the auction business, I can spot an antique a mile away.

The central battle on this conflicting vision of our society is being fought again. That matters for two reasons. First, just as our parents and grandparents paid the price for this ideology last time it was employed in this country, we do not want our children and grandchildren to pay the price for its resurrection today. Last time, it left us a weak country saddled with debt and high taxes, unable and unwilling to embrace new technology or to invest in public services—and working people paid the price.

Secondly, to paraphrase Robert Kennedy, living in a democracy is not merely about the absence of tyranny but the presence of freedom. A free market matters to us and our constituents not just because we have learned that it is the best way to run an economy but because it underpins all our other freedoms. That is why we will continue to defend it as we build an economy and a country that works for everyone.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me just say to the Front Benchers that if they agree 10 minutes, they should stick to that, because I do not want it to break down in future with people taking advantage by allowing the Opposition to have 10 minutes and then you carry on for 17 minutes. I think we have to be fair to both sides. If we make agreements, let us please stick to them. If it is 15 minutes, I do not mind, but at least let us be honest with each other when we make those decisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the economy.

Record Copies of Acts

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

When I heard that the hon. Lady was opposed to the proposal, I took the liberty—I hope she does not mind—of looking up whether there are any important documents from the town of Grimsby that are printed on vellum and would not have existed had they been printed on paper. It turns out that in Grimsby town hall there are 14 boxes of them including, from 1227, the charter creating the town of Grimsby; from 1256, the charter granting the town of Grimsby its right—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Sit down, Mr Jenrick. [Interruption.] I suggest you sit down—[Interruption.] Order. Mr Flynn, I certainly do not need any help from you. I say to you, Mr Jenrick, that the Minister is desperate to come in. By all means make the point, but you cannot read a list as though it is the phone directory to tell me what is there or not. We have got the message; let us get on.

Flooding

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I am fortunate that my Newark constituency has not been seriously flooded in this winter’s flooding, but it has been among the worst-flooded of any constituency in the country over the past few years. Forty towns and villages in my constituency have been flooded in the past three years alone, including the beautiful cathedral town of Southwell, which was devastated in 2013. More homes were flooded in that small town than were flooded in all the Somerset levels in 2014. Some residents are still not home.

As other hon. Members have said, being flooded is not only a terrible inconvenience, but can be an individual tragedy. Some of those tragedies do not become apparent until sometime later. I have met constituents whose elderly parents were rescued from their homes by the emergency services and taken elsewhere, very confused and scared, and died in temporary accommodation or nursing homes, having never returned to their own homes. Essentially, their lives were washed away by the floods.

Some good things have undoubtedly come out of the floods, particularly in Southwell, which I hope gives a glimmer of hope to other communities. That community was brought together wonderfully by those events. A very important and award-winning flood forum was founded.

In the short time I have, may I make three observations drawn from our experiences in Nottinghamshire? As this is an Opposition day debate, inevitably a blame game crops up, but the Secretary of State and more recently the Minister could not have been more helpful to my communities. They have had the greatest and most helpful can-do attitude. Together, we have begun to achieve quite a lot for those communities.

My first point is that we need a more local approach to prevention and maintenance, as well as to the implementation of new flood protection schemes. In communities such as Southwell where there are superb flood forums, I ask the Secretary of State please to make use of them in her flood review and gain the benefit of their experiences. I ask her to make small amounts of money available to them. They need that money immediately to create websites and fliers and so on. Those are invaluable. Where we have those groups and they do such a good job, I ask her to use them and not simply to rely on the Environment Agency and such large, often excruciatingly slow, organisations. We should use those forums and the internal drainage boards. I heard from someone or other in the Labour party over the winter that IDBs are hopeless and out of touch, and that they are dominated by biased landowners. The opposite is true in my area: the Trent valley IDB is superb.

Secondly, I ask the Secretary of State please to use local people so that we can use public money better. This debate should be about getting value for money for the taxpayer, rather than simply about the quantities.

My last point in the dying seconds that I have available is this: we need to explain to the public that many people will be flooded—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.