Infected Blood Inquiry Report
Debate between Peter Bottomley and Rishi Sunak(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The thousands of people at Central Hall thanked Sir Brian Langstaff, and he thanked them. As has been said, we should acknowledge the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and her leadership of the all-party group.
Permanent secretaries and Cabinet Secretaries need to say to everyone throughout their chain, “Are we doing something that is right? Are we doing something that is necessary? Are we doing something that will work?” Does my right hon. Friend agree that if those questions had been asked more effectively, the number of tragedies would have been not five for every MP—and five times again for everyone injured or affected—but greatly reduced, and that we would have learned the truth earlier?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend for his dedicated work co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, alongside the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). I assure him that Sir Brian’s report is highly detailed and sets out a number of recommendations, and that we will respond to it in full as quickly as possible.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Peter Bottomley and Rishi Sunak(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you and the Prime Minister will be welcome in the Arun district of my constituency, where developers are trying to build over every vineyard, horticultural nursery and piece of agricultural land. Will he point out that the last place to build homes is prime agricultural land, especially in an area where developers have enough permissions to meet the council’s targets for the next five years?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that sustainable development must be at the heart of our planning system. That is why we are committed to meeting the housing needs of our communities by building the right homes in the right places, making sure that everyone makes best use of brownfield land, conserving our countryside. That is also the point he makes, which is important. I have been crystal clear: we must protect agricultural land. Food security is incredibly important and we need our farmers to produce more Great British food.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Peter Bottomley and Rishi Sunak(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.
Israel and Gaza
Debate between Peter Bottomley and Rishi Sunak(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House will be grateful to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the lead that they have given in today’s statement. This is not the time to point out the faults of Benjamin Netanyahu. What we have to say is that the inexcusable terror attack on Israelis was intended to bring awful harm to the Palestinians.
Rather than quote international leaders, I want to quote a senior constituent, who said: “This is a very harrowing time for Jews all over the world. There are about 16 million of us worldwide. Why can’t they leave us alone?”
If we pray for the peace of Jerusalem, we want to try to bring security, both to the people of Israel and to the Palestinians in Gaza. Does the Prime Minister know that he will have our support as he tries to do that?
The Prime Minister
I thank the Father of the House for what he has said, and I simply agree with his constituent in saying that all of us will pray for peace in the region, but especially for peace for those families who have been so tragically affected by what has happened over the past week.
Illegal Immigration
Debate between Peter Bottomley and Rishi Sunak(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The parliamentary leader of the SNP, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), can put down a debate on legal migration for next week; the subject today is illegal immigration.
The questions in front of the House and the country are: how can people be safe, how can their status be determined, will the action work, is it necessary, and is it right? I think most people listening, whether they normally support the SNP, Labour or the Conservatives, will say, “Yes, it is necessary, it will work, and it should go ahead.”
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. As he knows, this problem is complicated—it is not easy, and it will not be solved overnight—but I believe the plan that we have outlined today represents the most serious step forward in getting a grip of it. The task for us now is to deliver on it. With his support and everyone else’s, I am confident that we can.
Financial Statement
Debate between Peter Bottomley and Rishi Sunak(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her reply. She raised several points that I will come to in due course, but listening to her speech it sounded as though covid, and the huge damage it did to our economy and public finances, had never actually happened. It sounded as though we did not have to introduce furlough, support businesses and provide emergency funding to schools, councils and, yes, the NHS. While her party supported all those policies at the time, it now seems unwilling to pay for them. There is a pattern there. Labour is always happy to spend taxpayers’ money, but not to take care of it.
On some of the hon. Lady’s specific points, it was telling that she opened her statement by yet again calling for a windfall tax. On this side of the House, we want to encourage more investment in the North sea, and we want more domestic energy and more jobs for the UK. A windfall tax would put that off, which is why the Prime Minister will bring forward a comprehensive energy security strategy in the coming weeks to address that.
The hon. Lady talked about business rates and supporting businesses. In just a week’s time, small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector will get a 50% discount on their business rates bill. It is the biggest cut to business rates outside of coronavirus since the business rate system was created—£1.7 billion. I know that she has said that she would like to abolish business rates. She also says she has some fiscal rules, but I have not quite figured out how she will pay for the £25 billion of tax cuts that that would involve—I look forward to hearing it. She talked about defence spending. It is all very well to talk about the size of the Army. At least Labour now seems to think that we should actually have an Army, which is a welcome conversion. It is because of how seriously we take the nation’s security that in 2020, when we had decided to do short-term spending settlements for most Departments, we singled out one Department for special treatment and gave it a four-year settlement in advance of everyone else—that was the Ministry of Defence. In that settlement it received £24 billion of new cash, the largest uplift to defence spending since the end of the cold war, ensuring that we are not just the second-largest spender in Europe in NATO but the fifth largest in the world, a record of which we on the Conservative Benches are very proud.
The hon. Lady talked about pensions. Again, thanks to the actions of Conservative-led Governments since 2010, we put in place the triple lock—not something the Labour party ever did when it was in power. It means that pensions are now £2,300 higher than they were in 2010 and £700 more than if the triple lock had not been in existence during that time. I am pleased to say that the state pension, relative to earnings, is now at its highest level in over 30 years. This party will always be on the side of pensioners.
Turning briefly to the hon. Lady’s comments on tax—fair enough, it is a short time in which to have to respond, but I am not sure if she fully understood the implications of the tax cut announced today. The increase in the national insurance thresholds to equalise them fully is a £6 billion tax cut for 30 million UK workers. It is the largest increase in thresholds ever, the biggest personal tax cut in a decade, and it is worth £330 for those workers. I do not know whether she realised this, because she talked about the levy and making sure that we direct our policy at those who need our help, but there is a reason the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies called this increase the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system: 70% of workers will pay less tax, even accounting for the levy. It is more generous than the policy she is advocating. Combined with the other tax cuts we have announced today, this plan represents the biggest net cut to personal taxes in a quarter of a century.
Let me conclude by saying this. The plan we have announced today has only been possible because we have taken tough decisions with the public finances. They have not always necessarily been popular, but they always been responsible and always honest. It is two years to the day that the country first entered lockdown and suffered the biggest economic shock in over 300 years. An unprecedented collective national effort was undertaken and two years later this Government have not only fixed the public finances but people are back in jobs, debt is falling and taxes are now being cut. No Government can get every call right. We learn from our mistakes and we strive to improve. But even if they will not admit it, Labour Members will recognise this day as an achievement that we all can celebrate. I have said it before to the Labour party and I will say it again: there is a fine line between reasonable criticism and political opportunism, and in my experience the British people can always tell the difference.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I think the shadow Chancellor’s remarks will be best remembered for pointing out that the Conservatives won the 2010 election and the 2019 election. It is probably a very good thing for the country that we did.
The Chancellor has met the major obligations on public spending which helps the economy to grow and which allows for more jobs and more Government revenue. As he pointed out just now, the changes to national insurance do the things that Martin Lewis, as well as the institutes, would applaud. Those three sources of support—he has my support, too—are very welcome.
May I ask the Chancellor to remember that pensioners do not just have the state pension? Many have fixed pensions on top and getting inflation down as fast as possible is vital to them. They cannot go for a bigger pay increase if they are not at work.
Finally, some areas of public spending do not make it easy to have efficiencies. If teachers’ salaries make up most of the cost of education, it is very important to ensure that we do not squeeze education and wreck our schools and our pupils’ future.
On cladding, when amendments to the Building Safety Bill come from the other place, can my right hon. Friend please not keep his purse completely shut? If money needs to be advanced so that homes can be safe and saleable, will he please consider that openly?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and he is right to highlight some of the independent commentators who have supported the policies announced today. I will touch on one of the things he said, which was about education spending. I agree that it is vital for our country’s future that we support our teachers and children. That is why the Prime Minister announced, in total, £5 billion of catch-up funding to help children to recover the learning they lost during the pandemic, why we are raising per pupil cash amounts by £1,500 over the Parliament, and why we are raising teachers’ starting salaries to £30,000, as our manifesto committed to doing.
Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast
Debate between Peter Bottomley and Rishi Sunak(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak
Let me run through the hon. Lady’s questions in turn. She asked about my favourite hoodie. I can tell her that it is not the one in the picture, but actually the kickstart hoodie that was given to me by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which I wear with pride.
The hon. Lady asked about the self-employed and again mentioned this number of 3 million people. I would like to address this point properly. It is not a number that I recognise, and I do not think that it is right to describe those people as excluded, as 1.5 million of those people are not majority self-employed; they are people who earn the majority of their income from being employed. That decision was taken to help target the support at those who really needed it. We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about support being targeted, especially regarding the self-employment scheme. That decision was made because if someone earns the majority of their income from employment, it is reasonable to assume that they will benefit from the furlough scheme, and that is how the majority of their earnings come in. That principle was supported at the time by every trade association that I spoke to when designing the scheme. In fact, those conversations were supportive of a much higher threshold than the one that we adopted, which was just “a majority”; others said that 60% or two thirds would be reasonable.
I hope that it is also of comfort to the House to know that the median amount of self-employment income that those 1.5 million people who are not majority self-employed have in their returns is somewhere between £2,000 and £3,000, so it is not the overwhelming part of their earnings. At that level, the universal credit system and other support that we provide will be significant in making up the difference.
The hon. Lady asked about welfare and again mentioned universal credit. I guess it is worth reminding the House that the Scottish Government have plenty of powers over tax policy and welfare policy—and, indeed, have used them in the past. I hear that there is to be a Scottish budget. We look forward to seeing what the Scottish Government decide to do with the powers that they have over both tax and welfare decisions.
The hon. Lady asked about jobs and talked about the OBR. I am glad that the OBR has today joined the IMF and the Bank of England in commending the Government’s economic response and recognising and stating explicitly that the interventions that we have put in place have reduced the level of unemployment and saved people’s jobs. I think that the OBR actually quantified that in its report today, putting the number at hundreds of thousands and confirming what the IMF said—that our response has held down unemployment.
The hon. Lady asked about young people. We are determined to help young people. They have borne the brunt economically of this crisis, which is in part why we created the kickstart scheme—an ambitious programme under which, I think, 19,000 fully funded placements have now been created for those under the age of 24 who are at risk of unemployment. We also provide a cash bonus to businesses to take on new young apprentices. All those things will make a difference to our young people at what is, without question, a very difficult time.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House will be glad that the Chancellor has met the needs of the poorest, that he is going to maintain the increase to the state pension and that he is ensuring that people get opportunities to get back into work if they have been out of it. He talks about the £250 minimum for the lowest-paid people in the public sector. May I ask him whether that includes people working in local government or just national Government? That would be useful to know.
There will be a welcome for the increase in spending for schools. There are also many other things that people will think are sensible and that could—or should—have been done as the Labour Government went through the crisis in 2008, when they also implemented a public sector pay freeze. May I put it to him that it would be incredible if the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority were to force a pay increase on Members of Parliament when others do not get it? One way or another, will the Government—and perhaps you, Mr Speaker —talk to IPSA and ensure that that does not happen? I have the view that MPs’ pay should only be adjusted after a general election; that may be a minority view, but I think it would be wrong for us to have pay forced on us when others cannot get a pay increase.
Let me turn to overseas aid. When the Departments were merged, the Foreign Secretary said that the 0.7% figure would be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was elected in 2015, as I was, under a commitment to meet 0.7%. We were re-elected in 2017, and the only difference in 2019 was that the word “proudly” was put in front of that commitment. I am proud of that commitment. I will work with anyone across the House to make sure that a change of percentage does not happen. Obviously, with our GNP coming down by 10%, the amount that goes on aid will come down automatically. I fight to maintain the pledge that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and I made at the last general election.
Economic Update
Debate between Peter Bottomley and Rishi Sunak(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I will run through them as quickly as I can. She asked about the block grant adjustment. The OBR will do final costings for these policies in the coming week, and once those costings have been done, the block grant will be adjusted as quickly as possible. It should be done based on OBR costings, as is normal for these matters.
The hon. Lady asked about Barnett. I am pleased to tell the House that the sum total of Barnett funding for Scotland as a result of all the interventions through this crisis is now £4.6 billion, which is going to support similar measures in Scotland to the ones we are providing elsewhere.
The hon. Lady asked about the inclusion of different businesses in the VAT cut. For attractions, I refer her to principal VAT directive annex III, paragraph 7, where the existing legislation is drawn. The guidance will be published tomorrow, for SIs to be laid next week and to come into force on Wednesday. That paragraph has the full range covered in our existing legislation.
It is absolutely important that we invest in our future. This is something that matters keenly to both me and the Prime Minister, which is why, in the Budget, we delivered on the Prime Minister’s ambitions to level up in every part of this country with investment plans that tripled the amount of investment in our country from the last four decades. It is a significant commitment of our level of ambition and support for every part of this United Kingdom, building prosperity for the future by having an investment revolution. The hon. Lady can be reassured that we remain committed to that goal.
The hon. Lady also asked about support for those who are older. Not quite for the first time, although the only other time that we did it was very time-limited, we are introducing a payment to businesses to take on apprentices over the age of 25—£1,500 per apprentice taken on—for the simple reason that while most people think of apprentices as young people, some 44% or so of new apprentice starts are actually over the age of 25. It is important that we provide that financial incentive at this time of economic distress, to try to create as many new apprenticeships as possible, including for those who are older, who will of course also benefit from all the other universal skills interventions that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Education will take forward.
More broadly, the measures that I announced today—the jobs retention bonus for furloughed employees, the kick-start scheme, the VAT cut and the “eat out to help out” discount—are all incredibly significant interventions and all of them benefit the entire United Kingdom. It is important to note, as I have heard from the hon. Lady and other members of her party, how important tourism is to the Scottish economy—something that my Scottish colleagues have made clear to me. Rural communities and coastal communities especially play a disproportionately important part in the Scottish economy. The “eat out to help out” measure and the VAT reduction for these economies will be absolutely vital in driving Scotland’s growth going forward. That is a reminder to everyone that we are stronger together, one United Kingdom.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I welcome the positive approach that the Chancellor and the Government are taking. Were we to ask them, I think many MPs who will not be able to ask a question today would share my view that we should be green, red and blue: green by having economically and environmentally sustainable ways of getting the economy to come back; red by watching out for things that we should not be doing; and blue by being colour blind and trying to make sure that whether they are on the coast, in the countryside or in the cities, people get opportunities.
I hope that the Chancellor will pay attention to what the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said for the SNP about those excluded. The new all-party group is very concerned about those who have not been caught up by some of the support schemes. They need help and I hope that the Chancellor will find some way of bringing that forward as well.
Let me give just one example of the red—of what not to do. I am putting down an early-day motion—a prayer against Statutory Instrument 2020 No. 632, which goes under the name of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. It allows two storeys to be built on blocks of flats built between 1948 and 2018—I do not have a personal interest in this matter, by the way—which will potentially wreck the lives of leaseholders who want to get their freehold and put the price up so that people like Vincent Tchenguiz can go stuffing his pockets again at the risk of the pockets and the expense of leaseholders.
Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter and ask whether there can be a better housing adviser in No. 10 and in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to make sure that they do not get things wrong again?
Rishi Sunak
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support and am happy to talk to him about the matter that he raised. I agree with him that there must be a green recovery—something he has championed for a long time—and it will be a green recovery.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Peter Bottomley and Rishi Sunak(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
Far from being complacent, the Government are working hard to ensure that local authorities receive the support that they need, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). We know about the importance of children’s services, and the importance of ensuring that all authorities benefit from best practice from places such as Leeds, Hertfordshire and North Yorkshire. We are funding those authorities so that they can spread that best practice throughout the country, transforming the lives of children everywhere.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I do not want to assume that Ministers have seen the letter that was sent to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and me today by the director general for housing about the chairman of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and LEASE, the Leasehold Advisory Service. It deals with one issue satisfactorily. May I ask Ministers to see whether the alleged social media comments that pose a difficulty can be sent to the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform to establish whether he can overcome the second difficulty?