Official Secrets Act

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me seek to address the shadow Home Secretary’s points. He raised the question of whether China constitutes a threat or not. I think I was very clear in the language that I used. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, and as the Government set out in the strategic defence review, China presents a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”. The reality is that, in government, there is an absolute requirement to co-operate with nations all around the world. When there are areas in which we need to challenge China, of course we will do so. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will completely understand that when there are areas, in terms of economic co-operation, in which we need to work closely with China, of course we will do so, because it is absolutely in our national interest.

I referenced the comments of the previous Foreign Secretary, and the shadow Home Secretary might want to look back at what was said following the China audit. The previous Foreign Secretary was absolutely crystal clear: we will take a long-term, strategic approach to China that is rooted in the UK’s national interest. I understand why the shadow Home Secretary wants to boil down such a complex bilateral relationship into a single word, but the reality is that it is neither helpful nor sensible to do so.

The shadow Home Secretary will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his characterisations of what he described as the “signals” that this Government have sent to China. In truth, I will not take any lessons from him on that, not least because—I have said this to him previously—it was not so long ago that a Conservative Prime Minister took the leader of China to the pub. When it comes to signals, I am not sure that the shadow Home Secretary speaks with a huge amount of authority.

The shadow Home Secretary spoke about FIRS. He knows that the Government’s position is that no decision has been taken with regard to the enhanced tier and China, and any decision taken by the Government will be announced in the normal way. FIRS is a crucial tool, and I am proud that this Government have got on and implemented it as of 1 July.

The shadow Home Secretary specifically raised the issue of the embassy in London, as I am sure other hon. Members will. He will know that China’s application to build a new embassy in London is going through an independent planning process. A final decision on planning permission will be made in due course by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I can be absolutely clear, in relation to FIRS, the nature of the threat and the embassy, that national security has been, and will continue to be, a core priority for this Government throughout the process.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about the CPS decision. I know that he understands that he is asking me about decisions made by the CPS that are entirely independent of Government. This was an independent decision made by the CPS, and it is not for any Government Minister to speculate on the reasons behind it. As I have said—I have been crystal clear—the Government are extremely disappointed with the outcome in this case, and we remain extremely concerned about the espionage threat posed to the United Kingdom.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hope that the Intelligence and Security Committee will get a good chance to dig into what has happened in this place, because we are hampered in the Chamber by not being able to look at sensitive issues. I also hope that the Minister will lend his weight to the approval of many senior Members of this House, prior to the last election—it got as far as the last Prime Minister—to create a Committee to look at sensitive spending, but also sensitive issues. In the summer, this Government chose to reintroduce extradition arrangements with Hong Kong, despite the application of the Chinese security Act. Given what the Minister has said today, how can we square both of those positions?

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope that my hon. Friend knows that this Government hugely appreciate and respect the relationship we have with Hongkongers. Through the processes in place, we will absolutely ensure that nobody, be they a Hongkonger or any other nationality, is extradited for reasons of political expediency. I can also point her to the important work, which we take incredibly seriously, on transnational repression. I previously made a statement to this House, and I hope that she and others understand the seriousness with which we take these activities. We are working closely with our international allies, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that the UK is a hard target for these threats, wherever they might originate.

EU-UK Summit

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Creasy]

I am always pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman admit that he is in fact a rule taker, not a rule maker. It is noticeable that the co-operation that his Government did not pursue meant that we did not have access to EU databases such as Eurodac and the Schengen information system, which are critical to stopping cross-border crime and addressing illegal migration. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the fact that we have always co-operated; it was a conscious decision by the previous Government not to do so, and it is a conscious decision by this Government to address that to help to make us safer. Time and again, his Government rejected important security measures just because they had the word “Europe” in the title. This Government will not make that mistake.

All that is before we even get to the basics that I believe most of our constituents will be interested in, including the sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which will see the removal of the vast majority of the paperwork and checks that were killing British food manufacturing and farmers, as well as causing inflation to costs here. Just the removal of export health certificates will save businesses up to £200 per consignment—a cost that was being passed on to our constituents. Again, I offer any Member who wants to defend the previous deal the opportunity to apologise to all those who work in logistics and have had to deal with Sevington, and the queues, delays and confusion about getting goods across the border.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that along with removal of the export health certificates, we are looking again at how we can remove the border operating model that the last Government brought in, which put further charges on top of the export health certificates and meant more delays in getting seeds to British farmers and flowers to market for our British businesses. All our constituents will welcome an SPS deal, because it is a way to tackle the extra £6.5 billion that we have had to spend on food and drink as a result of the charges, on top of other costs, because of Brexit.

Of course, we must talk about fish, because Britain’s fishing industry has indeed been battered by Brexit. Boris Johnson promised both prodigious amounts of fish to be caught and EU vessels out of our waters. He delivered neither—fishcakes, indeed. The new deal will start to address the damage done to our fishing industries. It is an honest and fair deal to secure no further loss of access and the restoration of a market for fish. The SPS deal will cut the Brexit red tape that has caused a 29% drop in fish exports to the EU since 2019. I am sure that Members read the words of Ian Perkes, a fish merchant from Brixham, who said that he had a catch worth £80,000 written off because of a dispute over the temperature it had been stored at, and another consignment rejected because the Latin name for Dover sole was spelled wrong.

The deal done by the previous Government would have expired next year. If we want the investment that the industry desperately needs, the stability of terms matters. With 80% of our catch exported—70% of that to the EU—the new deal offers a chance for that stable future for our fishing communities. It is the same with energy. The deal done by the previous Government would have expired next year. As the Prime Minister pointed out, we have been aligning in practice since we left the EU; we just have not had any say in what happens. We have aligned because the standards are high, and because asking businesses to follow two different sets of rules is a recipe for more regulation, not less. Anybody who doubts that needs to look at the record of the last Government.

I stand here as a red against red tape, welcoming the ruthlessness with which the Government have acted. The previous Government tried to introduce the UK charter mark, which they then admitted would cost British business billions of pounds to implement. They then promptly stated that if businesses had met EU standards, they had met British ones too. What a mess! The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is currently going through Parliament, and I am sure that the Minister will want to update us about what the deal will mean for the Bill and its terms of trade.

Conservative Members will decry the idea that we are rule takers. We were under them, but under this deal we will be consulted. We will have to abide by a dispute resolution system. Conservative Members act as if that is some new phenomenon—something we have never had as part of any other trade deal or, indeed, as part of their trade deal with the European Union. Thankfully, we can look to a non-mythical creature—but one that is certainly at risk—the puffin, to see what the reality might be, because last year the EU took the UK and Holyrood to court for banning sand eel fishing in the North sea and Scottish waters, as they wanted to protect that vital food source for the puffin. That is a noble aim that we can all get behind. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague had to decide whether the ban was a reasonable measure and, as a result, rule on our ability to determine fishing in our own seas. The courts upheld that decision to protect puffins and did so on the basis of the European Court of Justice—a process that the previous Government had signed up to already and that is part of the future negotiating deal.

Conservative Members talk of sovereignty as if it is some lump of plasticine that we can hand out, but the truth is that the new deal upholds our ability to make our case and to work with our neighbours within a reasonable framework. It is five years since we left, and we are still talking about and affected by the decisions that Europe makes. We are just not in the room where they are being made.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the things still not agreed is getting back into the Erasmus scheme. The Turing scheme, which was proposed instead, cut out youth groups, which has had a big effect in my constituency and around the country. Does my hon. Friend have any further information —I hope the Minister is listening—about the pace at which we might get back into the Erasmus scheme?

[Ms Creasy]

That is a fair and central question. I was coming to the point that we must ensure that our young people do not bear the brunt of the obsession with isolation at the expense of influence. That is why it is right to negotiate a youth mobility scheme and to look at Erasmus. I urge the Government to ensure that the scheme prioritises apprenticeships and training opportunities, so that future generations can benefit in the way that many previous ones did by taking a job in Spain or Germany, as well as going there to study.

Ultimately, this is just the start of the process—I am very aware that “Frozen III” is due to come to cinemas soon. There will be much more detail to work out, and I am sure that the Minister will give us a timeline for when decisions will be made and when we will get that detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

As the Minister says, the Windsor framework does as well. It shows where and how it works, and I think our constituents deserve the honesty of how the processes actually work and what the rulings are, rather than the fantasy. The puffins are very real; the puffery is not.

Finally, I have some questions I wish the Minister to address in his summing-up, because there are questions arising from the summit and the deal that has been struck. He will be aware that many of us have been championing membership of the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, because that is also about the rules of origin paperwork, which has been so harmful to our supply chains. Could he give us an update on whether there is an opportunity for us to be part of that mechanism again, to help British businesses with all that paperwork?

We also need to understand whether any progress has been made on the mutual recognition of conformity assessments and qualifications. We know the latter is in there, but the agreement matters for both. Finally, can he say a bit more about what will happen to our financial services, which have not been mentioned yet but are the primary driver of growth in our economy?

The new deal will help our constituents finally clear the fog of Brexit: the excessive paperwork, the partnerships that have been damaged and the personal opportunities lost. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to use these summits to keep working on our relationship with our neighbours. It is an honest recognition that we can fight many things in life, but geography is not one of them. Our constituents have paid the price of a bad deal, as have many of us—some Opposition Members literally bankrolled the Brexit campaign. It is no wonder the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not with us today; if I were him, I would not want to be here to admit what a botched deal has been done.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend has helpfully laid out a list of issues for the Minister. I would add: what do we do about touring musicians? It has had a really big impact that people are unable to tour in Europe because of the cost of cabotage, visas and so on, as well as the time delays. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be pushing that issue as well?

[Ms Creasy]

I do. We may be making Elton John unhappy in the main Chamber, but I hope that in this Chamber the Minister can make him very happy with progress on touring musicians. We welcome the chance to work across the House to fix this through proper scrutiny, debate and discussion. The world is a very uncertain place right now, and our constituents will consider the new deal to offer hope for their future. As much as there is chaos and confusion, we can be crystal clear that both cake and change are possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.

This week will go down in parliamentary history as the week of the greatest surrender. It was bookended by the surrendering at the beginning of the week of the valuable freedoms won from the European Union through the joys of Brexit, and by today’s surrendering of our valuable freehold of the Chagos islands, on which there will be a statement later. I think many members of the British public will be confused, because last week the Government were talking about the joys of the freedoms of Brexit—to be able to do trade deals with India and with the United States—but, all of a sudden, this week they have gone back to the fog of surrender by handcuffing us very closely to the European Union.

There is a rule in business that has been deployed many times by parliamentarians: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Normally with the EU there is a last-minute drama, but this time was different, because little was agreed and everything was conceded. That is the bottom line. Little has actually been agreed, and everything has been conceded in an extraordinary act of surrender. To use another expression, it is the thin end of the wedge. The EU cannot believe its luck; it has opened the door and stuck the little wedge in there, and it has now got lots of things that it is still negotiating on. Every time, its representatives will say, “Well, you’ve got to agree this before we move on to the next one.” We have heard it all before, yet the Government have learned nothing.

The first surrender is very dear to my constituents in Boston. My fishermen are raging and furious because they assumed that after the end of this first-phase deal, more quotas would be negotiated back to the UK, they would be beneficiaries and we would take back more control of our waters. Instead, it is all been conceded—for 12 years. It is gone.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Are his fishermen not pleased that their export market, which was often turning fish back because of the massively complicated controls, is now open to them again? We were not eating that fish in the UK, and too often it was rotting.

[Richard Tice]

No, they have not mentioned that at all. Likewise, none of the major logistics firms in my constituency has even once mentioned the so-called delays at the border. This surrender of fishing is completely and utterly inexcusable, and nothing has been gained in return.

The second big surrender is that, apparently, we have negotiated theoretical access to some future EU defence fund, but we do not know how much access. We know that we will have to pay a whole load of cash, but we do not know how much—it all has to be negotiated in future. Little has been agreed and everything has been conceded.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The UK has one of the best defence industries in the world. I am disappointed, as a fellow patriot, that the hon. Gentleman wants to downplay our ability to access that money and support UK businesses and jobs.

[Richard Tice]

I did not say anything about downplaying; I said that if the Government are going to agree a deal, they should agree the terms of the deal. They should not just say, “We’d like a bit of the action. Please tell us how much it’ll cost us later,” and have no idea how much of the action they will get. That is a terrible deal, and we all know that no deal is better than a bad deal.

The third surrender is about becoming a rule-taker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to agrifoods and the SPS deal, which all sounds very good, except that we now have to take a load of extra rules from Brussels that we have no input into under a process called dynamic alignment, which might mean that we cannot do any further trade deals with great nations such as the United States. That is instead of arguing for mutual recognition, which can of course exist between nations that have excellent standards of food and products, as we do.

We have gained nothing from those three great surrenders. Indeed, we will probably have to pay more if we want any more rules to be given to us, but why would we pay more when we have given ourselves the freedom not to have to pay? I thought we had done all of that.

If we are not content with that, what about the fourth surrender—the big one? Earlier this year, the Minister said, “Don’t worry, chaps—no plans for any form of youth mobility scheme.” It turns out that he was right, because some clever person rebadged it: “I’ve got an idea. Let’s call it a youth experience scheme.” Well, I am sure it is a lovely experience, but when someone is 30 years old, are they still a youth? Is it a middle age experience scheme? During the negotiation—because it has not been concluded —I can see that it will then become an old age experience scheme. Then, someone will say, “Hang on, if it’s an old age experience scheme, we don’t have the workers to look after the old people from the EU who’ve come over to our glorious care homes.” So then we will have to have more freedom of movement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

The hon. Lady implies that we are unable to go to the EU; of course, people can travel to the EU. What I am saying is that people want to get a good job with good pay prospects in their neighbourhood —near home. At the moment, that is not the reality, and that is what people are focused on.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

The hon. Lady may have forgotten that it was thanks to our intervention that British Steel and the blast furnaces have been saved. We stood there six years ago, and I said, “Don’t sell British Steel to the Chinese,” but the Conservative Government ignored our advice. British Steel has consistently said to me over the last six years that the cost of energy drives up the price of steel. That is why the quantity of steel that we have produced in this country in the last decade has plummeted—because of our high energy costs due to the ever increasing cost of renewable energy.

The key problem is the cost of energy, which has driven down the production of steel by about half in the last decade. That is why British Steel is so cross about the cost of energy. We have an opportunity to manufacture and sell more steel internally, in the UK, but the tragedy is that the Ministry of Defence, for example, does not use either of our key steel producers—Tata Steel or British Steel—as a critical supplier, which it should do. Why does it not do that? Because those producers are uncompetitive. Why? Because of the cost of energy in our domestic market. The fifth surrender is the EU emissions trading scheme, which will be a serious handicap and handcuff over the next few years.

The sixth surrender is on the use of passport e-gates. I know it caused some interest, but the reality is that, once again, nothing has been agreed. It is supposedly the great benefit, yet it turns out that it is not agreed. We have no idea when it might commence; it might be this year or next year. It also turns out that no country is obligated to sign up to our supposed access through the e-gates—no, it will be a voluntary process. Actually, we have not agreed the benefit that we have all been told is the deal’s greatest opportunity.

In other words, once again, little has been agreed and everything has been conceded. Interestingly, even before the deal, nations such as Portugal already allowed us through e-gates. We already have the opportunity that is supposedly the great benefit of this deal, so why do the deal in the first place?

The deal has been done, despite all of these great surrenders, because we have a Prime Minister who did not want us to leave the EU. More than that, he did not want to trust democracy; he wanted to do it again by having a second referendum. One week, he says that he wants freedom of movement and more immigration, and the next week, he says he wants less immigration. It is hard to keep up.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am disappointed that we are hearing, from the hon. Gentleman and others on the Opposition side of the Chamber, words such as “surrender”, “sinister” and “stupid”. They are nicely alliterative, but let me give him some other words: “cheaper”, “faster” and “more opportunities”? They are what the deal brings to the young people of Boston and Skegness, as much as to the people of Hackney South and Shoreditch.

[Richard Tice]

I am absolutely certain that nothing will be cheaper as a result of the deal. Indeed, we have already seen that the carbon price has gone up, which gives us the first indication.

I do not think that the deal will be a great opportunity. It was a catastrophic surrender. We worked so hard to give ourselves freedom of control through Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms McVey, particularly in a week when the Government acted in our national interest by ensuring a deal that is good for business, bills and the security of our borders. By contrast, the one struck by the Conservatives was, as I put at the time, thin as gruel. It has been particularly catastrophic for our exports, which have crashed by 21%. The new agreement finally starts to set that right. The measures on carbon trading will boost the Treasury’s coffers while reducing businesses’ outgoings, and the commitments on defence will help to deliver for more communities the kind of once-in-a-lifetime reindustrialisation that we are seeing rightly take place in Barrow.

The proposed measures on youth mobility are not a return to freedom of movement; they are a ladder to opportunity. I would urge the Minister, as they are developed, to particularly focus on ensuring that low-income and working-class Brits can benefit. I benefited from a brief period studying in France. I hope that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) will not mind if I mention that I believe it is a matter of public record that he worked in France. I do not believe the ladder to opportunity that we both benefited from should be kept down on the ground for others.

I am aware that many elements of this deal are still being worked on. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for his endeavour in that regard. In the remainder of my hopefully brief speech, I want to underline two critical areas of additional focus for the Government. First—this has already been remarked on by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—it is important that the automotive industry’s concerns, given the integrated nature of its supply chain, are at the front of the Government’s mind. I understand the head of the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders has rightly said:

“The EU remains the UK automotive industry’s largest and closest trading partner”.

In his words,

“progress…towards a deeper strategic partnership is significant”.

As we move forward, I urge the Government to keep engaging with the SMMT, as I know my hon. Friend the Minister has been, and with the broader automotive sector—yes, on the critical issue of rules of origin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow rightly mentioned, but also on the development of the battery value chain and the improvement of supply chain resilience. I hope those discussions can also include relevant trade unions, and I know that workers at BMW Cowley are rightly keen for that to be the case.

Secondly, I have also already called in this place for the Government to consider undertaking a structured dialogue on tech regulation and the defence of democracy with the EU. That is not so we take on each other’s rules and regulations. We have distinct rules and regulations in this area; our Online Safety Act 2023 is not the same as the Digital Services Act, although they share many similarities. A dialogue would enable us to share information, particularly in the face of the kind of onslaught of disinformation and misinformation that our democracies have not seen for decades.

The reality is that the leadership of many tech companies believe they are above accountability to democratically elected national Governments. I saw that painfully last week when I was in Moldova with a Conservative colleague for an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit; it has been subject to sustained Russian-sponsored disinformation campaigns. We have seen the same kinds of campaigns, albeit at far lower intensity, in many other democracies, including in our country and many EU nations. We have to recognise that the kind of free and fair elections that are the right of people in our country are also an essential element of our security, just like the other matters covered in this propitious deal.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My right hon. Friend is making a compelling point. In contrast to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), she seems to be leaning into co-operating in order to protect. That does not mean rule-taking, surrendering or being stupid; this is leaning in and working with others to protect us all on our own terms.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; she is absolutely right that sadly we face the same threats from autocrats and those who seek to support them and disrupt free and fair elections. We need to ensure that we are sharing information, particularly given the speed of change. It has already been mentioned that, with the development of AI in particular, we are seeing increased threats to our democracies. We need to make sure that we are sharing information in that regard. I hope the Government will keep discussions on these matters open. I commend this deal.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to take part in this debate this afternoon. Having been first elected to this place in 2019, I feel I missed out on the meaningful votes and the main Brexit wars of a few years ago. However, I had the privilege, for the whole four and a half years of the 2019 to 2024 Parliament, to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee under the wonderful chairmanship of Sir William Cash. His choice to retire before the last election leaves this debate and indeed the whole House of Commons poorer. I am sure that he would have had many points to make in the debate.

The reason that I refer to the European Scrutiny Committee is the detailed work that Committee did to truly understand the way that EU law pre-Brexit and indeed post-Brexit, and the involvement of the European Court of Justice post-Brexit, still pervaded our nation, our country and the way that many of our laws were made.

After Labour won the election last July, the Government took the deeply regrettable decision to disband that Committee. We lost not just that parliamentary scrutiny, which would have been invaluable in considering the deal that we are debating today, but the expertise of the Clerks and the expert advisers who served that Committee, and who often ensured that parliamentary debate on all matters between ourselves and the European Union was well informed.

If the Government do anything after this new deal has been struck—a deal that I do not support and that I believe sells out the decision of 17.4 million people in 2016—it should be to re-establish the European Scrutiny Committee, so that each and every one of those rules that we will now take is scrutinised line by line, and reported to the whole House and the relevant Select Committees. Then, whatever side of the Brexit debate we fall on and whatever our view of the world may be, we can all understand where those rules have come from and what they mean to our constituents and our country.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am slightly perturbed that the hon. Member says, “whatever side of the Brexit debate we fall on”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, Brexit has happened. We are now in the real world of today, in which there is a war in Ukraine and huge issues because of the energy crisis, and it is absolutely vital that we work with partners across the world, whether that is through the India trade deal or this one. Can he not acknowledge that we are now living in a different world and that the word “Brexit” is of no use to us any more?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her intervention, but I am not sure that I fully agree with her analysis. This deal is relitigating Brexit. It is reintroducing dynamic alignment and a role for the European Court of Justice in many ways that we thought we had put behind us after the last Government delivered on Brexit, which meant that we left the European Union.

UK-EU Summit

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this achievement, on top of two great trade deals. This is important if we are trying to deliver growth in the economy. Could the Prime Minister outline what he thinks the two or three main gains are to boost the economy in short order, so that we can build the public spending that we so badly need?

[The Prime Minister]

Our approach has been on the question of bringing our bills down, which is why the SPS agreement is so important, and of protecting and driving up jobs, which is why the EU, India and US agreements are all so important. That is particularly the case for car manufacturing, but equally so for pharmaceuticals, which are protected under our agreement. However, there is a bigger picture: these are three individual trade deals, but taken together they show that other countries want to do deals with the UK now in a way that they did not before.

Trade Negotiations

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Minister for coming forward with his statement, but the Table Office has not received a copy of it. I am wondering where it is and when we will see copies of it. Can it be handed in so we can get it printed for Members?

Let us move on to Dame Meg Hillier.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the team at the Department as well as our team of officials under Lord Mandelson in Washington. This is a major step forward in a short time. Given how long trade agreements normally take, this is an impressive step.

However, as has been mentioned, we know that President Trump has made rattling sounds about tariffs on the film industry. The creatives and technical businesses in my constituency who contribute to our film industry are obviously nervous about that. Will the Minister reassure us that he is putting his shoulder to the wheel on this issue and not resting on his laurels on the triumphs achieved so far?

[Mr Alexander]

Mr Speaker, on your point, I apologise again for the statement not being available. As was clear from my initial remarks, there was some confusion within Government as to the best way to proceed, but I hope that through my officials we will provide it to you as a matter of immediacy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that very important issue. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would support a memorial to the service and sacrifice of those veterans. The bravery and service of individuals such as Captain Tilley, and others in the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit and the photographic interpretation units, saved the lives of many servicemen and servicewomen and, of course, civilians, and—as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out—the cost was the many casualties in those units. As we mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day, we will remember those who helped to secure our greatest victory.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q9.   The London borough of Hackney spends £54 million a year, and rising, on temporary accommodation. Not only is that costing the taxpayer dear, but it is wrenching families apart. Communities are being rent asunder, schools are closing, and families are living in hostels in overcrowded rooms or in far-flung areas outside London. I welcome our pledge to build 1.5 million new homes, but will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that social housing is a priority for him?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: families are desperate for the security of their own homes, and we are delivering the biggest boost to affordable and social housing in a generation, backed by £2 billion of additional investment. That, and our reforms, will fulfil our ambition to build 88,000 new homes in areas across London, including my hon. Friend’s constituency. At the same time, we are tackling the root causes of homelessness, and, of course, scrapping section 21 evictions.

Defence and Security

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this strong commitment to defence spending. I welcome as well the work being done with the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary on ensuring that we get as much value as we can for each pound spent on delivering capability. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to the parliamentary scrutiny of that spending, including on the most sensitive areas?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course; it is extremely important, and my hon. Friend knows that well. She is absolutely right to say that we must get value for money. This is a huge increase in defence spending. It is very important that it is used on the right capabilities in the right way, and that is why we intend to get a much better grip on the money that will be put in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and I meant it when I said that we were all proud to see the right hon. Gentleman standing there as Prime Minister representing our diverse country. We were all proud: I think everyone in the House was. I thank him for that, and for his last question as Leader of the Opposition—although, given the speed with which his party goes through leaders, he may be back here before too long. In the meantime, I am sure that he will be a great champion for the people of Richmond.

Finally, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my disclosing to the House the contents of a letter that he wrote to me this week. My answer to it is clear: yes, I will arrange for him to meet the relevant Minister about the A66, which runs through his constituency.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q2. In Hackney, nearly 4,000 children who could fill eight primary schools are in temporary accommodation, in many cases outside London. That is bad for their future opportunities, and it is ripping our communities apart. I welcome the Government’s pledge to build new homes, but will the Prime Minister ensure that those who cannot have a roof over their heads are a top priority in that long queue for new housing?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is a source of national shame that there are just under 1.3 million households on a social housing waiting list, including, I think, 8,000 in Hackney. The best way to tackle overcrowding and meet housing need is to build the homes this country needs, and that is why we will deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. The Chancellor will set out further details in just a moment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question, and I congratulate her on her election as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. She has campaigned for many months—indeed, years—on the issue of baby loss, as have other Members across the House. I am very pleased to see that progress among some major employers, and I know that she will want to work with us on ensuring that those who experience baby loss are supported and protected, particularly at the most difficult times.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

This Black History Month, I would like to reiterate that people’s race or ethnicity should never be a barrier to opportunity. We are enhancing rights through upcoming legislation on race and disability, equality, employment rights and banning conversion practices. To deliver that important work, we are reforming the Equality Hub to create the office for equality and opportunity in the Cabinet Office. There is much to do, working within and beyond Government, to create opportunity and promote equality across the UK.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

We have had some progress since the Government were elected on issues relating to black and minority ethnic women and domestic violence. However, Valerie Forde, who was my constituent, was brutally murdered by her partner, and Valerie’s law— named for her and campaigned for by her daughter and the charity Sistah Space in my constituency—has not yet hit the statute book. Will the Minister reconsider and examine the support needed for women because of their ethnic, and racial or cultural background?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the campaigning work that she has done in this crucial area in the face of the tragic loss of Valerie Forde. We must do everything we can to ensure that all victims of violence against women and girls receive the support that they need. I will make arrangements for her to discuss further with a Home Office Minister what more we need to do, particularly around police training and standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. The Windsor framework was negotiated by the last Government. We supported it, and we continue to support it. We will work to make sure it is implemented properly and fully.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q7. One in two children in my constituency lives in poverty after housing costs are taken into account, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty, but we all know that every year of poverty has a long-term impact. When does the Prime Minister expect the welcome child poverty taskforce to report so that we can see action?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. It is appalling that child poverty has gone up by 700,000 since 2010, after the last Labour Government did so much to bring it down. Tackling this is at the heart of our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. The taskforce is developing a strategy to reduce child poverty, and it will be published in the spring of next year.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I echo his tribute to his constituent Clive Smith for all his remarkable campaigning over many years. In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s second point on the probate process and ensuring that the money actually reaches those it is supposed to reach, the Government are considering how we can best support victims through the probate process. I hope to have further details on that in due course.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Huge congratulations to you on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her dogged work in getting everybody to this point.

I want to raise with the Minister the interesting report that has come out from the National Audit Office this week, which looks at compensation schemes across the piece and makes recommendations to the Cabinet Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said, there have been a number of compensation schemes, but they seem to be ad hoc, and lessons are not always learned about how to deliver them, so victims in the middle get squeezed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us that he will be considering that and coming out with recommendations in due course.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She is entirely right that we need to learn lessons from previous compensation schemes, where they have gone well, and, frankly, where they have gone not so well—where, after looking at and reflecting upon them, we see that the proportion of money that we wanted to go to victims did not quite make it. I certainly give the reassurance that we are looking at those previous schemes and trying to learn best practice from them.

Debate on the Address

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but I confess I am a little disappointed with him because today he walked into the Chamber. He could at least have tried a bungee jump or maybe freewheeling on a bicycle. I applaud him for his efforts in the campaign; they kept us all entertained and, looking at the number of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches, clearly paid dividends.

I welcome and thank my hon. Friends who proposed and seconded the Humble Address, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) that he may be the youngest of eight, but I am the second of 10. New Members of the House will hear a lot about Big Brother, but I can tell them that they have a big sister here to support them; I am sure my hon. Friend will support them too. After 19 years in this place, I know my way around a bit, although I too still get lost, so they should not be worried about that.

I was delighted to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). I first came across her when she was a Member of the London Assembly. I knew then that she had something special about her and we saw that here today.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I spent nearly a decade chairing the Public Accounts Committee in this place, in the last Parliament and the previous two. In that role, I saw many egregious examples of incompetence, bungling and waste, whether it was water companies, school buildings with reinforced concrete and other things falling down, the running sore of rail infrastructure, the national embarrassment of defence procurement and the scandal of personal protective equipment procurement during covid. Time and again, we saw Government bungles, poorly drafted contracts, lack of oversight, dodged responsibility, endless excuses, and the taxpayer picking up the tab. No wonder people were so angry at the election. No wonder they voted for change and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister.

Now the true extent of the Tory mess is coming to light. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has revealed, it is even worse than we thought. She has opened the books, looked under the bonnet and seen the true extent of the mess that is now for a Labour Government to clear up. The previous Government partied, squabbled and helped their mates, but they did not fix the roof when the sun shone. They trashed the joint. From austerity to the PPE scandal and Trussonomics—remember that?—they weakened the fundamentals of our economy and stretched our public services to breaking point.

In my annual report, which was one of my last reports as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I listed what I called the “big nasties”, some of which the Chancellor is revealing to us now: 700,000 pupils are in schools that are not fit for purpose; there were in fact far fewer new hospitals than the 40 that were much vaunted and they were never going to be delivered to the promised timetable; and the gaping hole in our defence budget. I certainly applaud the approach of this Government, and it seems some consensus from the Opposition Benches, that we need to see an increase in defence spending.

The consequences of the mess that has been left behind by the previous Government are human. According to the House of Commons Library, nearly one fifth of children in my borough of Hackney live in absolute poverty. Four in 10 children in Hackney live in poverty after housing costs are taken into account, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent figures. My constituency is in the top 5% of English constituencies with children who are income deprived. That is the shameful legacy of 14 years of failure.

In one of the world’s greatest and richest cities—a bus ride from the financial powerhouse of Liverpool Street—no child should be cold or hungry, or lack a winter coat or decent shoes. Schools in Hackney have kit rooms for the children who turn up without the requisite uniform and lend it for the day in return for a token like their Oyster card. No parent should be having to skip meals to feed their kids, which is happening too often in Hackney and elsewhere in the country. No child should be arriving at school with a rumbling tummy, which is why I welcome the breakfast clubs that we already have in Hackney and the fact that one of the first acts of this Labour Government will be to make sure that every child in primary school has a decent breakfast.

When we talk about stagnant wages, low productivity, flattening growth, lack of investment in skills and schools, the abolition of Sure Start, and the gig economy, there is this human cost. Right now, in a Hackney school, there is a hungry child whose huge potential is being wasted, whose opportunities are stunted and whose life chances are hobbled. When I first arrived in this place 19 years ago, I had to tell people about the good things that were going on in Hackney, because people had written off my borough as a poor and deprived area where things did not happen. Now people think of the Shoreditch hipster, the tech companies and the city fringe, but underneath that there is this huge poverty and opportunity being stunted for our children. This is the mess that this Government now have to clear up.

Another example of that is the housing crisis. A safe, warm and affordable place in which to live should be, and is, a basic right. We all need a roof over our heads before we can do anything else in our life—whether it be study, work, or bringing up our families—yet, after 14 years, my constituents face a housing crisis whatever the tenure.

According to Hackney council, the median household income in Hackney is just under £36,500 a year, yet the median house price in my constituency—which has doubled since 2010—is £610,000. For those who have not caught up on the maths yet, this means that a house costs more than 16 times the median household income. According to the Land Registry, the average first-time buyer in Hackney paid just under £600,000: over half a million pounds for a first-time buyer. Well, that’s not most first-time buyers, is it? It is the lucky few who either have a very good job, or have got help from the bank of mum and dad or other family members. I do not deny them that help, but it should be an opportunity available to all.

It is utterly ridiculous that we are in this situation. Young professionals with double incomes are simply unable to afford a deposit to get a place of their own and are often stuck living with family members into their 30s. Others are forced into rented accommodation, with no security of tenure and rents so high that there is no spare money to save to get on the housing ladder.

According to the work of the Public Accounts Committee, around 13% of privately rented properties—589,000 properties—pose a serious threat to health, so landlords are getting the rent but landing their tenants in hospital with lung diseases, mental illness or physical injury. I hope the Chancellor’s ears are pricking up, because the Public Accounts Committee estimated that this situation costs the NHS £340 million a year. That goes to the broader point: economic inefficiency, child poverty, the housing crisis and failing public services all cost us more money. The economics of decline is an expensive business, but—we see hope now, with this Labour Government—investment in jobs, homes, schools, skills, roads, the NHS and tackling crime saves the public money down the line. As I was often saying when I had the honour of holding the role of Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, a penny of waste is theft from working people’s pockets, and a fair economy is also an efficient one.

I warmly welcome the measures in this King’s Speech under a Labour Government; how nice it is to say those words after 14 years. Since 5 July my colleagues in the Cabinet—I was about to say the shadow Cabinet; old habits die hard—including Labour Secretaries of State, have moved into action from the inertia of what went before, and that means that we are on the road to recovery. It is going to be a long haul, but I welcome the measures to support start-ups and tech companies, particularly as I represent Shoreditch, where so many are based; to revive skills; to modernise our health services, particularly prioritising mental health; to get more teachers into Hackney schools; and, crucially, to build more affordable homes.

We need many affordable homes in inner London, in constituencies such as mine, where social housing is the only option for so many people. Only last week, a woman came to my surgery who had four children in a one-bedroom flat, and her elderly, sick father had had to come to live with them. That is how the family lived —four children in a one-bedroom flat—and it is not uncommon at all. We need to drive change to deliver housing around the country, but particularly in the inner city.

I also recognise the lead and step change in tackling the issue of net zero to decarbonise our economy with investment in renewables, insulation, carbon capture, and green jobs—things I have examined a lot over the last decade and on which we have seen the previous Government fail so often.

Above all, I welcome the commitment of His Majesty’s Government—our Labour Government—to kickstart growth in our economy. Without steady, sustainable economic growth and without the proceeds of growth fairly shared across the nation, we will continue our national decline. Instead, in this King’s Speech, we are offered a hopeful prospectus for change, the prospect of progress, and a new sense of national renewal and hope after 14 years. We know it will not be easy, nor will it be as quick as we all impatiently want it to be. As a former Minister and having been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for 13 years, I know that modernisation and reform can be frustratingly slow. I have seen many good ambitions frustrated by poor delivery.

If I may proffer a word of advice for those on the Treasury Bench, finding themselves newly surrounded by eager officials, many of whom came in front of my Committee, and red boxes, it is this: “Please stay focused. Look up at that horizon. Think of the people who sent us here, who voted for that change you want to deliver and we all want to see. Keep an eye on that guiding goal of growth. Test every proposition that comes across your desk against that simple question, ‘Does this promote or hinder growth?’”

Successful government, as the Prime Minister said, is mission led. Of course we want to tackle poverty, build homes and transform our NHS, but the main mission is growth, because without that we cannot deliver any of the others.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP.