Before we begin, I should like to take a moment to remember that today is the 20th anniversary of the terrible London bombings in 2005. The thoughts of the House today are with the victims and their families, and with the emergency services, London’s NHS and the staff of Transport for London, who responded so bravely to the events on that day. I think we all remember where we were when that horrific news came through.
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons Chamber
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I join you, Mr Speaker, in remembering the 52 people who never came home on that terrible day, as we remember the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 London terrorist attacks, and remember too all those whose lives were changed that day. I will say more on this matter during topicals.
The Government are rebuilding neighbourhood policing after it was decimated under the previous Government. This year we are putting 3,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on the beat, backed by £200 million of additional funding and detailed plans drawn up by police forces for increased patrols in town centres this summer.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Special constables play a vital role in visible community policing, but the number of specials dropped by over 700 between 2023 and 2024, and we lost one in four in the same period in my constituency of Chichester, which is represented by Sussex police. Will the Home Secretary consider practical incentives such as council tax relief or free local travel, like those that the Met police currently have, to support recruitment and retention of those specials?
I welcome the hon. Member’s point about specials. They play an extremely important role and the drop in the number of specials across the country in the years before the ones to which she refers was even steeper. I am pleased that Sussex police are getting not just 43 additional neighbourhood police officers, but a further 21 specials into neighbourhood teams this year. We will continue to look at what more we can do to increase support for specials and get more on the beat.
Chris Webb
Last week I joined Blackpool police and our police and crime commissioner, Clive Grunshaw, under the iconic Blackpool tower to launch the safer streets summer initiative in Blackpool. This has coincided with delivering the guarantee that every community in Blackpool will now have a named police officer and PCSO, which has been welcomed across the community. Can the Home Secretary confirm that my constituents will soon see more visible policing and regular foot patrols in our town centre, and, crucially, start to feel safer and more confident on the streets of Blackpool?
My hon. Friend is right, and he and I have talked to shop managers in his constituency about the importance of tackling town centre crime. It is why Lancashire police are getting an additional 83 police officers and PCSOs into neighbourhood teams this year. I strongly welcome the work they are doing as part of the Government’s safer streets summer initiative to tackle shop theft and street assaults; doing so can make so much difference to keeping people safe.
May I associate myself and my Committee with your words earlier, Mr Speaker, regarding the 20th anniversary that we are marking today?
Live facial recognition technology is an effective tool in community and neighbourhood policing. We know that is being used effectively by the Metropolitan police, but other police forces are nervous because they do not believe that the statutory underpinning is in place. Can the Home Secretary provide some reassurance about what the Government will do to make sure this technology can be used effectively?
The Committee Chair is right that live facial recognition can play a role in keeping communities safe. As a result, the Minister for Policing has been meeting not just police forces but other organisations to ensure that we can draw up a new framework to give all police forces the confidence to use facial recognition in the best way in order to keep communities safe.
We need good community policing, but we also need good senior leadership teams in our forces. A recent review of Warwickshire police showed the leadership and the force management need improvement, and that its response times were inadequate. Would the Home Secretary look into Warwickshire police?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to see standards raised across policing and across all police forces. That is why the police reform White Paper will set out new measures to improve performance management across all police forces. Warwickshire is getting an additional 22 police officers, PCSOs and specials on to the streets.
May I join you, Mr Speaker, in marking the anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings? Our thoughts are with the victims and families, and all who did all they could to help those in need.
Yesterday, Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley called the spending review “disappointing”, highlighting that he is being forced to cut 1,700 officers and staff. Policing may not be a priority for this Labour Government, but the last Government put a record number of police on our streets. Will the Home Secretary commit to keeping total number of police officers above 147,746, as it was under the last Government—yes or no?
Unfortunately, the trouble is that actually the Conservatives did not put police on the streets. They may have tried to reverse the massive cuts that they had made to policing after 2010, but they did not put police on the streets. Neighbourhood policing was slashed under the Conservatives and some areas saw neighbourhood policing halve as a result. I am glad to say that this year the Metropolitan police will put 470 additional neighbourhood police on the streets, as a result of the support that they have been given.
I think that was a failure to commit to that total number. During the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill, we asked the Government to stop our police having to investigate playground squabbles and hurty words online as non-crime hate incidents, and now senior police officers are joining that call. Merseyside chief constable, Serena Kennedy, has said:
“Non-crime hate incidents are having a disproportionate impact on trust and confidence in policing”.
I realise that U-turns are quite fashionable for the Government, so will the Home Secretary now finally scrap non-crime hate incidents and save 60,000 hours of police time?
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that police forces are following the guidance that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), drew up on this issue. We have a review that is happening under the College of Policing at the moment, but the shadow Minister refers to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is introducing new measures on stalking, spiking, respect orders, e-bikes, off-road bikes and a whole serious of different issues, and which sadly the Conservatives voted against—so much for caring about tackling crime.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The best community policing is embedded within communities, responding to their needs. Whether it is attacks on Jewish-owned businesses or hateful chants at music festivals, there are too many sobering reminders of the reality of the antisemitism that too many within the Jewish community across the UK are facing right now. Home Office figures have shown that religious hate crimes are at record highs, and that the number of hate crimes specifically targeting Jewish people has more than doubled. Everyone deserves to feel safe in our society, and that must include British Jewish communities, so what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that police have the training and resources needed to effectively tackle antisemitic hate crimes, while supporting survivors?
The hon. Member is right to highlight the appalling increase in antisemitism, antisemitic hate crime and assaults that took place after the events in the middle east. She will know that, in order to tackle antisemitism, we and the police work very closely with the Community Security Trust and we are introducing new measures to deal with intimidating protests outside synagogues.
My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience in health matters. There are regular discussions between ministerial colleagues about how we can best join up public services. We know that joined-up working results in better outcomes at a local level. Collaboration and engagement between neighbourhood policing and neighbourhood health teams already exists to tackle mental health issues, and drug and alcohol addiction. I hope that this Government’s investment in neighbourhood policing will enable more of that work to continue.
Evidence shows that integrating policing and health is vital in delivering better outcomes in areas like mental health, substance misuse and youth violence—areas that we need to address in my city of York. With both police and health realigning into neighbourhood teams, will the Home Secretary ensure that there is reach across the services, with a named lead police officer, to develop prevention and early intervention strategies, diverting those at risk through harm reduction approaches, including treatment and support?
With the recently launched 10-year health plan, we are moving away from those siloed services towards a more joined-up approach, including the preventive model of care. That aligns very much with policing and keeping people safe, and supporting wellbeing. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the national neighbourhood health implementation programme and to ensure that policing is part of the conversation from the outset. By working more closely with health and care partners, we can reduce inappropriate demand on policing. Officers should not be left to pick up the pieces when other support services are better placed to help. This is about getting it right—and getting that tailored support—first time.
I thank the Policing Minister for visiting Northallerton this year and hearing directly from my farming constituents about the impact of livestock and equipment crime on their lives and health. I am grateful to North Yorkshire police for all their hard work, and for the recent funding uplift for the national rural crime unit, but does the Minister agree with me on the importance of implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and, more broadly, ensuring that rural areas get the attention they deserve?
It was a pleasure to meet the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents; I think that was way back in February—it was a very cold day in North Yorkshire. I fully recognise what he says about the mental health and wellbeing impact of some of the crime challenges facing rural communities. That is why the neighbourhood policing guarantee is so important for areas like the one that he represents. As I have said a number of times in this House, we support the implementation of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, and we plan to bring forward regulations shortly.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
This Government recognise and value the contribution that NHS staff make to our country. That is why, under the settlement proposals in the immigration White Paper, we have made it clear that individuals will be able to reduce the standard 10-year period based on their contributions to the UK’s economy and society. We will consult on detailed proposals later this year. These are important changes: we recognise how important this matter is, and we will listen to what people tell us in that consultation. An impact assessment will be developed alongside any finalised policy.
Jayne Kirkham
I have been contacted by constituents working in health and social care in Truro and Falmouth who are concerned about the proposed changes to the standard qualifying period. Dr Mohamed Abdelazim works as a doctor at the Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust and has not quite completed the five-year eligibility period. He says the policy will directly and severely impact him and hundreds of other frontline workers and that 10 years is a very long time to live on a visa without the security that citizenship would provide. Will the proposed increase in the eligibility period to 10 years impact my constituents retrospectively, and might they be able to reduce that period based on the contributions that the Minister mentioned?
I understand the concerns raised by my hon. Friend’s constituents about the impact of the proposals. They are important changes, which is why we will consult on the proposals and lay out more details later in the year, including on any transitional arrangements. We understand the importance of clarity and fairness for those already contributing to public services, and we will provide further details in due course.
The Minister talks about concerns raised by the constituents of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). They are concerns created by this Government not valuing people from different parts of the world who serve in our national health service and social care system in Cumbria and elsewhere. Will the Minister be much clearer that this proposal will not be retrospective for people who underpin our health service in Cumbria and across the country? Will she be mindful of the impact on our health service if she goes ahead with a decision—which, at the moment, it looks like the Government are going to—that will hugely undermine the flow of workers who come here to support us and keep us all well?
May I gently disagree with the hon. Gentleman? We do recognise the vital contribution of overseas NHS workers, and we have not yet defined what contributions will reduce the period for settlement, but the proposed changes are subject to consultation. In addition, we are committed to ensuring that the NHS remains supported, while reducing long-term reliance on migration.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The Renters’ Rights Bill will allow individuals to end joint tenancies, supporting domestic abuse victims to leave their abuser if they share a home. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has announced a £30 million increase to the domestic abuse safe accommodation grant, raising the total funding in 2025-26 to £160 million.
Alison Hume
My constituent Molly is trapped in the house where she was violently attacked in front of her children. She is confined to living upstairs, because going into the room downstairs triggers her post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite the perpetrator of this abuse rightfully being in prison and having a restraining order of five years, Molly’s landlord has told her that they cannot take him off the lease, so she cannot move. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are taking steps to ensure that victims of domestic abuse, like Molly, can move on with their lives?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising Molly’s case—our hearts go out to her and her children for the trauma they are living with. Her case raises many issues, including the need for early intervention in domestic abuse cases, the need to improve therapeutic support for victims and, as my hon. Friend has said, the desperate need for reform of the rules around property rights in cases of economic and domestic abuse, so that women are not trapped. I cannot give my hon. Friend immediate answers on all those issues today, but I can promise that they will all be included in our upcoming strategy on violence against women and girls.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
While I have every sympathy with Molly and the millions of women who experience domestic abuse, according to the ManKind Initiative, one in five men are also victims of domestic abuse. My constituents Mark and Adam are victims of serial female abusers who engage in not only psychological, physical and financial abuse, but sexual abuse as well. What is being done to make sure there is space for men in refuges, and that there is training for police to ensure they believe these men? Often, they are burly chaps who have been in the Army, and people simply do not believe that they have been victims, which only compounds the problems they face.
We often refer to violence against women and girls, as the term refers to a group of crimes that are majoritively suffered by women at the hands of men, but of course men are also victims—both from other men and from women. The £30 million of extra funding that I mentioned in answer to the substantive question is for councils to provide accommodation in cases of domestic abuse under part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Local areas should be looking at the needs in their area and acting accordingly.
Fraud is the most commonly experienced crime in our country, and this Government will publish a new strategy to protect consumers and businesses later this year. Before that, our Crime and Policing Bill will introduce new measures to fight fraud, including a ban on the use of SIM farms. I hope Opposition Members will support those measures.
As the Minister says, fraud is the largest volume category of crime; it was coming down under the last Government, but over the past full year it has gone back up again dramatically. The Online Safety Act 2023 is a landmark reform, but criminals will always seek new channels, so what will the Minister do in his new fraud plan to address that displaced fraud, including that delivered through advertising on websites not covered by the Act?
I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue again. He is right: fraud accounts for over 43% of all offences recorded by the crime survey for England and Wales. Tackling fraud relies on collaboration between law enforcement, industry and Government Departments. That means everyone playing their part, and we continue to urge the tech and social media companies to take stronger action to stop consumers being defrauded when using their sites.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
At the peak under the previous Government, there were 400 hotels in use across the country, at a cost of £9 million a day. Thousands of asylum seekers were left in limbo in those hotels as decision making collapsed. That was the chaos that this Government inherited a year ago, but we have taken action to restore order. We are cutting the overall cost of asylum accommodation, and we are committed to ending the use of these hotels entirely by the end of this Parliament.
Charlie Dewhirst
People are rightly concerned by reports that the Home Office is buying hotels to house asylum seekers. That appears to be completely at odds with the Government’s manifesto pledge to end the use of hotels. Will the Home Secretary or her Minister confirm to the House whether those reports are true or not true? Will she reassure my constituents in Bridlington and The Wolds that there are no plans to house illegal migrants in facilities in our local area?
The Home Office is not buying hotels. As for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, there are currently 61 service users housed in his area, which is less than 15% of the quota, and there are zero hotels.
Joe Robertson
The Government may not be buying hotels, but it is filling them up with asylum seekers. The number has gone up in the past year, not down, yet the Government say that they will reduce them to zero by the end of this Parliament. Will the Minister confirm whether the commitment to end the use of asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament is a guaranteed pledge on which we can judge their success or failure—yes or no?
By March this year, 15% fewer people were in hotel accommodation than at the end of 2024. We are saving money on the chaos that we inherited from the Conservatives, and we have announced that we will end the use of hotels by the end of this Parliament.
Are private rented family homes in socially and economically deprived areas the right place for asylum seekers to be housed? Are community impacts of those placements being monitored, ready to inform policy if necessary?
I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep all these issues under close monitoring, and we are doing our best to ensure that individual areas take their fair share of the burden when it comes to looking after people in our asylum system. Just to reassure her, we have sped up asylum decision making. The system that we inherited was paralysed, and we are getting it going again so that we can deal with this issue as quickly as possible.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
This Labour Government inherited a situation from the Conservatives where we were spending almost £9 million every single day on asylum hotels, including the Crewe Arms hotel in my constituency. Will the Minister set out what steps she is taking to bring down those costs, as well as speeding up decision making, so that we can reopen the Crewe Arms as a hotel?
We are as anxious as my hon. Friend to end the use of asylum hotels, but the backlogs we inherited from the Conservatives and the time it was taking—decision making collapsed by 70% in the last three months of that Government—have made it harder to empty hotels than we thought it would be at the beginning. However, we have sped up; there has been a 116% increase in initial asylum decisions. We are speeding up the system, we are getting people through the system, and we will close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.
I gently remind the Minister that the number of immigrants in asylum hotels has gone up since the general election. I recently visited an asylum hotel and saw bikes from Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats in the hotel compound. Local eyewitnesses confirmed that the illegal immigrants in the hotel had been illegally working. That creates a pull factor, because people smugglers actively market illegal working opportunities. It also creates risk for women and girls, who might receive deliveries late at night from these undocumented illegal immigrants. Will the Minister at least commit now to preventing this illegal working from taking place from the hotels that she runs?
We have had a 50% increase in raids and arrests on illegal working since we came into government, so perhaps the shadow Home Secretary should have spent more time when he was in government enforcing the rules on illegal working. We are doing more, including extending the law on illegal working to the gig economy. That measure is in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which he voted against.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Enabling new refugees to prepare properly for life in the UK will be key to reducing the need for asylum accommodation. In my constituency we have seen the extension of the move-on period not only giving new refugees much-needed time to make those preparations, but protecting other public bodies such as the local authority from being left to pick up the costs. We welcomed the news last December of the Government’s decision to trial a longer move-on period for six months, but those six months have now come and gone, and despite numerous requests for an answer, the Government have provided no certainty on whether the trial will be extended. Can the Minister provide clarity today?
As it happens, I can. We have extended the move-on trial until the end of the year.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The seasonal worker route is designed to support the horticulture and poultry sectors, both of which have short-term seasonal production peaks. I discussed these issues with the Scottish Minister during my visit to Peterhead fish market in February. There is not the same evidence of seasonal patterns in the fish processing sector, which would require significant but short-term increases in labour, but I am always happy to discuss these matters with colleagues in the House.
Seamus Logan
May I begin by acknowledging the passing of a giant of our movement, Mr Alex Sim from Peterhead, whose funeral is taking place at the moment?
On Wednesday 5 March the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box, in answer to a question about the fishing industry in my constituency:
“We…want to tackle the problems of labour shortages”.—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 280.]
However, it is not just a question of fishing. Last week, Moray chamber of commerce told me of hospitality sector business closures, in some cases related to the inability to recruit key staff. Can the Minister tell me what progress has been made in this vital area? She has mentioned discussions with the Scottish Government, but when will we be informed of sector-specific progress ensuring that these industries, which are crying out for help, receive it?
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we work closely on this issue with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but we must also focus on addressing the underlying causes of recruitment problems. We recognise the position in which some of our fishing communities find themselves in relation to workforce challenges, but the hon. Gentleman will, I hope, welcome the news that through our new labour market evidence group we will be engaging with devolved Governments in the gathering and sharing of data and evidence on the state of the workforce, on training levels and on participation by all parts of the domestic labour market, so that we have an immigration system that is well informed and works for the whole United Kingdom.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
This Government are firmly committed to supporting existing members of the Hong Kong community in the United Kingdom and those who may come here in future. The new rules on earned settlement will be subject to consultation. Following that consultation we will outline the way in which the new rules will operate, explaining, for instance, which immigration routes they will affect and when the changes will come in.
Chris Curtis
Many of my constituents came to the UK from Hong Kong under the BNO visa scheme in search of safety, freedom and opportunity. They have shared with me their concerns about how the uncertainty involved in the changes in the visa system might affect their future here. Can the Minister provide reassurance that those on BNO visas, in Milton Keynes and throughout the country, will continue to have security, stability and a clear route to permanent settlement?
My hon. Friend is a strong and powerful advocate for members of the Hong Kong community in his constituency and throughout the UK. We recognise those concerns, and we are taking steps to ensure that BNO visa holders have an opportunity to share their views during the consultation on the new earned settlement and citizenship rules. As I have said, following that consultation the Government will outline the way in which the new rules will operate and the immigration routes that they will affect. Given the ambitious nature of these proposals, it is essential that we fully understand their impact on all affected groups before making any final decisions. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BNO route will continue to apply.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Will the Minister clear up, once and for all, the further confusion over the proposed changes to the settlement period from five to 10 years? Will she clarify for the BNO visa holders living in my constituency whether the changes will be applied retrospectively or only prospectively, and will she confirm that those who are already building their lives in the UK and working in important sectors in my constituency will not see their pathway to settlement unfairly changed mid-journey?
The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BNO status. As I have outlined, we will have a consultation. We will ensure that BNO visa holders have the opportunity to share their views during that consultation, and we will listen to those views very closely.
The Government are introducing a neighbourhood policing guarantee, which means that all communities will have named and contactable officers from the end of this month, and we are expanding neighbourhood policing, including by delivering 176 new neighbourhood officers this year for the Greater Manchester police force, which covers the Leigh and Atherton constituency.
As a proud Co-op Member, I commend the long-standing campaign for better protections for retail workers. USDAW’s National Retail Workers’ Day, which took place this weekend, highlights the essential role that retail plays in all our communities. Will the Minister join me in thanking retail workers in Leigh and Atherton and across the UK? Will she commit to strong, visible neighbourhood policing in our towns, which is crucial to protecting them from abuse, to ensure that workers can work safely on the frontline?
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking shop workers in her constituency and right across the country, who were often on the frontline during the covid pandemic. Sadly, during that period and since then, they have seen a disgraceful increase in assaults and abuse. We cannot stand for that, which is why we are not only introducing stronger neighbourhood policing—particularly in town centres—but bringing in the new law on assaults against shop workers as part of the Crime and Policing Bill. What a shame the Conservative party voted against it.
As the hon. Member will be aware, child protection and policing are devolved to the Scottish Government. We regularly engage with them on a range of issues, including the national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse that was announced by the Government. On 26 June, officials met to discuss the Government’s approach to the national inquiry, its remit and the expectation that relevant findings and lessons learned will be shared with the devolved Administrations, and we will continue to discuss this matter with our Scottish counterparts to ensure a comprehensive UK-wide response.
Senior Scottish advocate Sandra Brown has said that grooming gangs could be operating in every town and city in Scotland. This scandal affects the whole of the United Kingdom, so when will the Government extend the grooming gangs inquiry to Scotland? Surely all victims across all parts of the United Kingdom deserve justice.
Of course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he should take up that issue with the Scottish Government, as it is devolved. As I have said, we will make sure that all learning is passed on to the devolved Administrations.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) relate to the question of whether it will be a national inquiry, rather than a co-ordination of a few local inquiries. All the victims and survivors deserve justice, so can the Minister please confirm for us today that every town and city with a grooming and rape gang will be part of the inquiry, including and especially where local authorities may not wish to be part of it?
To the hon. Lady’s question, whether a local authority wishes to take part is not up for debate. The inquiry will be decided by the chair of the inquiry, as would happen in a statutory independent inquiry, and that work will go on. When we have inquiries, we have to make sure that we actually live by the recommendations of those inquiries. That is why I ask the hon. Lady why she voted against mandatory reporting and making grooming an aggravated factor—those were recommendations from the last inquiry—when she was asked to vote for them.
Small boat crossings undermine border security and put lives at risk. The criminal gangs have adapted their tactics to exploit French rules that prevent the authorities from intervening in French waters. The French Minister of the Interior and I agree that this needs to change. He has instigated a major maritime review to change tactics and operations, and we want to see these changes in place as soon as possible.
I agree with the Home Secretary that that would be a major step forward. Does she agree with me that, on average, well over 1,000 people have been crossing the channel each week this year, and that there is no way any form of court procedures can keep pace with that? Does she therefore agree that nothing other than prevention, as she has described, interception or, as a last resort, detention and return can possibly be successful?
I agree with the right hon. Member that we need stronger action to prevent the boat crossings in the first place, which is why we are working closely with France both on strengthening law enforcement, with a new law enforcement and investigations unit in Dunkirk, and on the issues of maritime tactics, because we need those interventions in French waters.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The small boats crisis is one of the single biggest issues that my constituents raise with me, and although the Government have made progress on returns, crossings are still happening. What assurances can the Home Secretary give my constituents that these gangs will be dismantled and that the crossings will stop?
My hon. Friend is right to refer both to returns—we have increased returns of failed asylum seekers by more than 20% since the election—and to the action against the criminal gangs. We know that there are Iraqi Kurdish gangs in particular operating in northern France, so we have a new agreement in place with the French Government, the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government, to pursue those gangs.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The Government are determined to crack down on antisocial behaviour, and tackling it is a central theme of our safer streets summer initiative, which is currently under way in over 500 towns. Our Crime and Policing Bill will provide policing with a suite of new powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, including respect orders to get persistent offenders out of town centres, and stronger powers to seize dangerous and deafening off-road bikes. I again remind the House that the Conservatives voted against those measures recently.
Richard Baker
With increasing incidents of antisocial behaviour and falling police numbers in Scotland, will the Minister assure me that she will share learning from the safer streets initiative with SNP Ministers, as it is rolled out, to encourage them to raise their game on this issue? Will she also join me and Police Scotland in Fife in praising Kingdom Off Road motorcycle club in my constituency, which is such a success in running activities that divert young people from antisocial behaviour?
We will of course learn lessons over the summer from our initiative and our blitz on town centres, and I am willing to share that with SNP Ministers, which I think would be very helpful in the light of what my hon. Friend said about the problems people are facing in Scotland. I of course welcome and commend the work with young people that is going on in his constituency.
Mark Ferguson
We have exciting plans for Gateshead town centre, but we have more work to do on antisocial behaviour. Northumbria police’s Operation Shield has brought down antisocial behaviour significantly, but more powers and more officers are needed. What are the Government doing to ensure that the police have both the powers and the resources to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour?
First, I am very pleased to hear about the work of Northumbria police with Operation Shield, which I think is to be commended. We want to work collectively with forces to focus on town centres nationwide, while recognising that some town centres and areas of the country have more significant problems to address. We want to build on existing data, good practice and evidence to develop a model that can then be rolled out up and down the country.
Glastonbury town centre has seen increasing rates of antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and crime. A local charity shop manager told me that residents and customers are too scared to walk down the high street, which obviously has a negative impact on the local economy. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how effective community policing can be the solution to the persistent issues that Glastonbury is facing?
I am, of course, very happy to meet the hon. Lady. That is why neighbourhood policing is important, and why the Government made a commitment to put 13,000 additional police personnel back into our town centres and communities over the course of this Parliament, to provide the reassurance that communities have not had for far too long, with the decimation of neighbourhood policing over previous years.
I thank the Minister very much for her answer. I know she is very aware of what we are doing in Northern Ireland, where community police officers are an important part of our policing. The relationships they build up over a period of 12 months, 18 months or two years mean that they become a part of the community. We should share good ideas—we have good ideas, as has the Minister. Will she take the opportunity to discuss those ideas with the policing Minister and the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland, because I believe that what we do can help here as well?
I am very pleased to hear about the good ideas being rolled out in Northern Ireland. I hope very much to be able to visit in the near future, so that I am able to see for myself that community policing in Northern Ireland.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Department is taking robust action to respond to state threats. We continue to implement measures in the National Security Act 2023, which include launching the foreign influence registration scheme on 1 July. We have also announced the conclusion of the transnational repression review, new police training and the establishment of a cross-Whitehall joint unit to tackle state threats.
Mr Bailey
Twenty years ago, after the horror of the 7/7 bombings, we joined up how we work on security threats of all kinds, creating an enduring multi-agency approach. Now, with the added challenge from far-right extremism and the rapidly mounting threat to Europe from malign Russian activity, we need to bolster our responses across borders as well as across our agencies. Will my hon. Friend look at the concept of a joint UK-French national security council meeting to push that forward at Thursday’s summit?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure we will all be reflecting on where we were 20 years ago. He is right about the nature of the threat we face today and he makes a very good suggestion. As he will know, we work very closely with our French neighbours. Important conversations will be taking place against the backdrop of the state visit, but I will consider more carefully the point he makes.
We know that terrorists and potential terrorists are coming on small boats across the English channel, so why is Border Force picking these people up and bringing them to the UK?
I can say to the hon. Gentleman that we are strengthening those checks. We continually assess potential threats in the UK and ensure that we guard against them.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that the Government have set an unprecedented mission to halve knife crime in a decade. We are determined to tackle the scourge of serious violence on our streets. This month, we are running a major new surrender scheme for lethal weapons, including ninja swords, in hotspots across the country, alongside introducing the new provisions in our Crime and Policing Bill to crack down on the illegal sale of knives online. Those measures will help to reduce the availability of dangerous knives on our streets and ensure that those who perpetrate these offences face the full force of the law.
Joani Reid
Six weeks ago, Kayden Moy, a 16-year-old boy from East Kilbride in my constituency, was stabbed to death, leaving his family bereft and a community—my community—in grief. Since Kayden’s tragic death, I have received multiple videos and images of local youths posing while wielding machetes in their own homes, but the police claim that they are powerless to take any action whatever. Does the Minister agree that much more needs to be done to stop the very real glamourisation of knife crime online, and to prevent social media from being a breeding ground for youth violence?
May I first express my condolences to Kayden’s family and friends? That is just appalling to hear. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the role that social media can play in glamourising these types of weapons. That is why it is so important that we have measures in the Crime and Policing Bill and the Online Safety Act 2023 to start to tackle that. As I say, it is absolutely appalling.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
This month, we have supported police and the retail industry to launch the new retail crime strategy, and the Home Secretary launched a safer streets blitz in town centres, with targeted action to tackle retail crime. Under the previous Government, shop theft soared to record levels and assaults against retail workers spiralled out of control. That is why, in addition to investing in neighbourhood policing, we are introducing in our Crime and Policing Bill a new stand-alone offence of assaulting a shop worker, because everybody has a right to feel safe on the job.
Alex Baker
Staff at Tesco in Aldershot tell me that the store is facing rising levels of shoplifting, with people walking out of the store with full trolleys. It is often the same individuals, who are emboldened because they do not fear the consequences. Hampshire police are doing their best, but they cannot attend every incident, and store staff feel threatened and powerless. This is a nationwide problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to tackle the wave of retail crime and to protect shop workers on the frontline?
It is totally unacceptable that shop theft and violence and abuse towards retail workers have continued to rise, particularly over the last two years of the previous Government, when they went up by 60%. We are asking retail workers to perform a significant act of public service as they enforce restrictions on the sale of items including cigarettes, alcohol and knives. As I have set out, the bespoke offence in the Crime and Policing Bill will help to shine a spotlight on the problem and ensure that we bring perpetrators to book. The Bill will also ensure that the sanction of a criminal behaviour order can be attached to a conviction for assaulting a retail worker, which will help to protect retail workers.
Whether at Asda in Basildon or Waitrose in Billericay, there have been real issues with shop thefts, particularly by organised gangs, which often come from outside the local area. They come in, ransack stores and then drive away. What is the Minister doing to address the issues that go beyond local theft and are actually a nationwide gang issue?
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We will continue to crack down on the organised gangs that target retailers. As we have set out, we will provide £5 million over the next three years to continue to fund a specialist analysis team within Opal, the national police intelligence unit for serious organised acquisitive crime, to share information and make sure that retailers are part of the conversation. We are doing everything we can to tackle organised gangs.
Our Crime and Policing Bill, which Opposition Members voted against on Third Reading, is giving the police greater powers to clamp down on off-road bikes and other nuisance vehicles that cause chaos in our communities. Once the changes come into force, officers will no longer be required to issue a warning before they seize a bike that is being used antisocially. On 28 May, we published a consultation to explore changes to the circumstances in which the police can seize and destroy these vehicles, and we will not hesitate to go further if needed.
I thank the Minister for that answer. Gwent police are taking on dangerous, illegal off-road bikes, but a related problem is electric bikes, which are sometimes chipped to go faster and have become a new danger. Will the Minister please look into this? The bikes can be switched up from being a means to get from A to B into being a real menace.
Yes, I am very happy to look into that issue and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it. He may want to know that the 60 additional officers that are going to be available in his police force area by the end of this year will help to tackle some of the antisocial behaviour involving e-bikes and other vehicles.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
On 7 July 2005, terrorists attacked London’s transport network at King’s Cross, Russell Square, Edgware Road, Aldgate and Tavistock Square. Fifty-two people, who were travelling by tube and bus across the capital, never came home. We remember them and the loved ones they left behind, and all those who faced terrible injuries and endured the trauma of that day, and we remember the incredible bravery and courage of those who responded—the emergency service workers and the fellow passengers who saved lives that day. In the words of the King, this was an act of senseless evil, but he also reminds us that we must
“remember the countless stories of extraordinary courage and compassion”
as
“the very best of humanity in the face of the very worst.”
I want to thank not just those who responded that day but those who have continued to work tirelessly in the two decades since against Islamist extremist terrorism, against other increasingly complex terror and national security threats, in counter-terror policing, in the security and intelligence agencies, and on prevention. Most importantly of all, this is about all of us, as we remember how our capital and our country came together across communities and across faiths to ensure that we never let hatred win.
Liz Jarvis
I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks. Eastleigh police station was closed in 2019 after 95 years of service. In 2023, the Hampshire police and crime commissioner promised that a new station would be opening within 12 months, but we still do not have one. Does the Secretary of State agree that my constituents deserve a new police station?
As the hon. Member will know, decisions about where police stations are located are for the local force, the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner. She will welcome the news that Hampshire is getting 65 additional neighbourhood police officers, who will be out on the beat this year as a result of the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right that we need the additional neighbourhood policing in West Yorkshire. I welcome the 12 additional officers in her constituency, the 100 additional neighbourhood police officers across West Yorkshire and, of course, the additional police officers in Pontefract and Castleford town centres. We have made it clear to police forces across the country that the focus this summer needs to be on tackling town centre crime.
I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks about the terrorist atrocities perpetrated on 7/7. The 52 victims and their families of course remain in our prayers. The whole House will want to send thanks to the emergency services for what they did on that day and what they do every day.
It is now clear that the Home Secretary has lost control of our borders. So far, 2025 has been the worst year in history when it comes to illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Her claim to be smashing the gangs is clearly laughable. The French are having almost no effect, despite spending hundreds of millions of pounds, and the press report that not much will change in the negotiations this week. Returns of small boat arrivals are down, representing only 5% of overall arrivals, so will—
Order. This is topical questions. You have to help me get the Back Benchers in, but you are not at the moment. I am sure you are coming to an end now.
I am, Mr Speaker. Will the Home Secretary finally admit that the only way to fix this situation is for there to be a removals deterrent whereby every single illegal immigrant is immediately removed?
The shadow Home Secretary seems to have forgotten that in the short period for which he was immigration Minister, net migration near-trebled and the number of small boats went up tenfold. Not only that, but the funding for France that he has referred to was agreed by his Government when he was at the Home Office. If he really wanted to see serious action against small boats, why did he vote against counter-terror powers for smuggler gangs, against clamping down on illegal working in the gig economy, and against stronger action to stop those dangerous crossings?
The Home Secretary talks about stopping those dangerous crossings, but there have been record numbers on her watch as Home Secretary.
Is the Home Secretary aware of the so-called “Police Anti-Racism Commitment”, which is itself flagrantly racist? It says that the racial equity commitment means
“not…treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”.
It says that the police should treat people differently in order to artificially engineer equality of policing outcomes. Does she agree that that is itself flagrantly racist? The police should treat everyone the same. Will she call on the National Police Chiefs’ Council to cancel the commitment? If it will not, will she legislate to give herself the powers?
As the shadow Home Secretary knows, the police’s oath makes it clear that they have to police without fear or favour, and that is what they do right across the country. It is a shame that he will not support the police in the difficult job that they do, just as the Conservatives voted against cracking down on off-road bikes, against new spiking and stalking laws, and against respect orders. They are against supporting our police.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. While the clandestine entrant penalty scheme has to be rigorously enforced in order to be effective, it also provides a very fair process of appeal for hauliers against penalties that are not justified by the facts of a case. I am sure that my hon. Friend will assist the company in his constituency through that appeal process.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
We have provided an additional £200 million for neighbourhood policing as part of more than £1 billion of additional funding for police forces across the country. That is how we are putting an additional 3,000 neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers on our streets this year, after the decimation of neighbourhood policing under the Conservatives.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right. That sort of graffiti and serious hate crime divides communities and needs to be taken seriously by police across the country. It is one of the reasons we are strengthening the law to give the police stronger powers to prevent intimidating protests around not just synagogues but mosques.
As the Home Secretary just pointed out, we have provided an additional £200 million this year to support new neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs for all our communities. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman if he would like to discuss policing further, but this Government are committed to making sure that the police have the resources they need.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Yes, I do. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work that BRAVE has done in Berkshire. Grassroots organisations are at the heart of work to support domestic abuse victims and the communities they live in. Tackling domestic abuse is at the heart of the Government’s mission and, I should hope, the mission of every police and crime commissioner.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Mercure hotel in Stanwell in my constituency is used to house asylum seekers, and I have had multiple reports of asylum seekers there working illegally. Will the Department please put that on immigration enforcement’s radar, so that it can take the appropriate action?
I assure the hon. Member that we take action against those who break the rules by working illegally. Raids and arrests for illegal working are up 50% in the last year; civil penalties in the last quarter were at their highest rate since 2016; and we are taking action to close the gig economy loophole through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which he and his Conservative friends voted against.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
That is an important issue. I am working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and the Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian authorities to identify safe routes by which British nationals and other eligible people can leave Gaza, or indeed the west bank, and so are able to obtain visas and travel to the UK.
The number of small boat crossings is driving people mad and eroding support for the Labour Government, just as it eroded support for the Conservatives. I worry for the Labour Government; I want them to do better on this, for all our sakes. Have not our French friends got a point about this country being uniquely attractive to illegal asylum seekers? We do not have identity cards, and we do not do what the Belgians do, which is to refuse to put them in reception centres. Can we make a study of what every other member of the Council of Europe is doing, and replicate the strongest actions, so that this is not the most attractive country for illegal asylum seekers?
I agree with the right hon. Member that we need to take action on a whole range of things. That includes action in France, further action on the network of criminal gangs, action on the water, and action to tackle illegal working and reform the asylum system in the UK. We inherited a system in which there was not enough action on illegal working; that is why we have ensured a 50% increase in raids and arrests. We will also bring forward more reforms on asylum.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it should be for Parliament and the Government to decide who has a right to remain in our country. As set out in our immigration White Paper, we intend to clarify these issues and the application of article 8 rights in the UK.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Less than three weeks ago, the Home Secretary whipped her Back Benchers against new clause 43 to the Crime and Policing Bill, which had cross-party support and would have criminalised the harassment of women and girls. Her Ministers promised at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the new clause was not necessary because the matter would be dealt with in the violence against women and girls strategy, which was meant to come out before the recess. We now hear that it is not coming out before the recess. Did Ministers misspeak at the Dispatch Box, or are they incompetent?
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to read the National Audit Office’s report on the previous Government’s violence against women and girls strategy, he will see that the strategy was found totally wanting.
I will come to it. It was also undeliverable and untested. I want to ensure that the violence against women and girls strategy that goes out in this Government’s name is the best it can possibly be.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
One of my constituents found that, despite taking precautions, their identity had been assumed, and their PIN for online banking was changed. That was repeated across other accounts, and thousands of pounds were stolen. What steps is the Department taking to combat sophisticated cyber-crime and ensure that, in particular, older constituents like mine remain protected?
I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent. Combating these crimes is a key priority for the Government. We continue to collaborate closely with the financial industry, organisations such as Cifas and regulators on strengthening account security and supporting victims. I would be happy to meet him to discuss this further.
I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments about 7/7. I remember that day too well, and we supported the Government then, too. In more recent times, there have been a number of major cyber-attacks, ransomware attacks and associated blackmail of major companies. It has come to my attention that one such company paid a very large sum to its blackmailer recently. I will share the name with the Home Secretary afterwards; it would not be appropriate to share it in the Chamber. Will she update the House on the progress of the Government’s actions to ensure that blackmailers of this sort do not succeed in future?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, and will happily meet him to discuss it. The Home Office recently closed a consultation on a world-leading package of legislative proposals to counter ransomware. A public response will be published shortly.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
The chair of the Met Police Federation, Rick Prior, and the chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, Rich Cooke, have both been removed by the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation after speaking up for the officers they were elected to represent. Is the Home Secretary as concerned as I am that the only staff association that police officers are legally allowed to join is no longer fit for purpose?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue; I know he has experience as a police officer. I regularly meet the Police Federation and its officers and chief executive. I will raise his concerns directly with them.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
How does the Home Secretary propose to reduce the number of people in asylum accommodation in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, given that even the Prime Minister admits that the situation in the channel is deteriorating?
By speeding up the asylum process, so that people are not trapped in asylum hotels by huge backlogs, and by increasing decision making by 116%, following the 70% fall that we saw in the three months before the last election, we will get the system moving again.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Over the past 14 years, police forces have faced significant cuts to personnel and resources. While many areas are returning to 2010 staffing levels, the west midlands still has 540 fewer officers. I support the efforts of the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster. How can we address the funding gap caused by an outdated national formula that has disadvantaged my Dudley constituents?
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for policing in her constituency. I hope she will welcome the increase for the west midlands of over 300 neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs. It comes at a time when we are putting 3,000 more neighbourhood police on the beat. We are also bringing in: new laws on off-road bikes and town centre crime; a ban on machetes, zombie knives and ninja swords; domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms; and new protections against terrorism for venues. That is action across the board to keep our communities safe.
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the Government’s performance against the fiscal rules.
As the shadow Chancellor knows, it is a long-standing convention of this and previous Governments not to provide a running commentary on a fiscal forecast, and it is for the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to assess performance against the Government’s fiscal rules in its official economic and fiscal forecast. In the most recent forecast, published in March alongside the spring statement, the OBR confirmed that the Government were on track to meet their fiscal rules two years ahead of target. It also confirmed that the Government were on track to meet their fiscal rules early in the Budget last autumn.
This is a choice—a responsible choice. When we contrast it with the actions of Conservative Members, who lost control of the public finances, we see working people across the country still paying the price. In line with the usual process, the Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new fiscal forecast in the autumn for the annual Budget. That forecast will include an updated assessment of the Government’s performance against their fiscal rules. As the Prime Minister confirmed last week, the Government are committed to their fiscal rules, which remain non-negotiable.
We have seen what happens when fiscal rules are put to one side—[Interruption.] Conservatives Members may be chuntering from their sedentary positions, but families across the country are still paying the price of the consequences of Liz Truss’s experiment through higher mortgage payments, and we are not going to put the nation’s finances at risk as the Conservatives have done. In contrast, this Government are meeting their fiscal rules and, as a consequence of the Chancellor’s decisions, we are investing billions of pounds in the renewal of Britain: in schools, hospitals, affordable homes and public transport and in keeping the nation safe. Any future fiscal plans will be set out at the Budget in the normal way.
The Chancellor said that she would not make any commitments that were not
“fully funded and fully costed”,
but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has just said that he now expects us to wait until the autumn to hear how the Government intend to cover the £6 billion of unfunded commitments that their U-turns have run up in the last month alone. A Government divided. A Government racking up unfunded spending. A Government wrecking the public finances. Why is the Chief Secretary not prepared to explain how they will fund these U-turns? There are surely only two possible answers: either the Treasury has made them without a clue as to how they will be funded, or it knows but is refusing to tell us. Either is completely unacceptable. Can the Chief Secretary set aside the usual blather that we have just heard and tell us whether he knows how these unfunded commitments will be paid for, or are his Government simply refusing to say?
The House will also have noted the inherent contradiction in the Chief Secretary sticking to the line that decisions will be made at a fiscal event in the normal way, when that is precisely what the Government have not done. By losing control of the finances and of their own parliamentary party, the Government have made significant fiscal decisions outside of a fiscal event. The Chancellor said at the Budget that she would not be coming back with more tax rises. Is this still the position? Will the Chief Secretary rule out a wealth tax, along with reconfirming there will be no rise in income tax, national insurance or VAT? The Chancellor said that she would not extend the freeze on tax thresholds because it would hurt working people. Is this still the position? Can the Chief Secretary confirm that the Chancellor will not be adding to her fiscal black hole by scrapping the two-child benefit cap? Can I also ask whether consideration—
Order. The shadow Chancellor will know the time limit. I am sure that this will be his last sentence.
It certainly is now, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Ministers are to begin putting their house back in order, that must start right now with full transparency and proper answers.
I think the House knows what losing control of the public finances looked like, because under the previous Conservative Government interest rates went through the roof, families were paying higher mortgage rates and the Chair of the Treasury Committee was calling out the irresponsible behaviour of Liz Truss and her Ministers in the Treasury. That is what losing control of the public finances looked like and that is why the Conservative party lost control of Government and is in opposition today. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on forecasts of annually managed expenditure and on future tax decisions. He knows how this works. All of that will happen with a forecast and a Budget, which will happen in the autumn.
We all know why the Government want to keep their fiscal rules tight, because we know what happens when the markets go wrong, but a lot of things have rocked the country since the Labour Government were elected a year ago. Will the Chief Secretary explain to our constituents what the benefits of the fiscal rules are for them in their day-to-day lives? This can seem a very remote and distant discussion for people who are living in overcrowded conditions or who need healthcare, for example.
I thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee for her question. The way I would describe it to the public is that when the Government lose control of the public finances, as the Conservative party did in government, it affects not only the accounts in the Exchequer and the Treasury but the family finances in every house across the country. People are still paying for the consequences of the last Government not sticking to their fiscal rules and acting irresponsibly. That is why our fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and we will stick to them.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
We all know the Government had a terrible inheritance from the previous Government, whether it was the incompetence of covid contracts, the mini-Budget or the botched Brexit deal. But at the same time, last year’s Labour Budget was a Treasury tax grab with no vision for the economy and no regard to the impact on small and medium-sized businesses and key sectors like hospitality and social care. We Liberal Democrats want to see things getting better in this country for our constituents and for the country. In the spirit of constructive opposition, I will ask the Minister a number of questions. When will the Government get serious about growth through a much deeper trading deal with Europe? Will Ministers look at fairer revenue raisers, such as reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for the big banks and raising revenue from tech giants and online gaming and gambling companies? Will the Prime Minister make a public statement to calm the markets and avoid four months of speculation about what might be in the next Budget? Will the Government commission an interim Office for Budget Responsibility report now?
Order. The same strictures apply to the Liberal Democrats—one more sentence.
I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Government confirm that they will not raid capital budgets to fix crumbling hospitals and to pay for day-to-day spending, and will the Minister confirm the date for the autumn Budget?
The hon. Lady encourages me to act above my pay grade. The Chancellor will set out the date for the autumn Budget in due course. The hon. Lady invited me to explain to the House what our strategy was at the Budget—it was about investing in the renewal of Britain. That is why the Chancellor’s decision to update the fiscal rules to allow billions of pounds of investment in our capital infrastructure across the country, including into schools and hospitals, was the reason that the Budget was set out as it was. She also asked me about trade deals. I politely point to the three trade deals that the Government have already agreed with the European Union, India and the United States of America, saving thousands of jobs across the UK and generating growth in the years ahead.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that it is because of these fiscal rules that this Government have been able to establish firm foundations for future growth? Will he explain to the House how the Budget stability rule supports the Government with confidence of investors and businesses?
My hon. Friend knows from her work on the Treasury Committee that the fiscal rules are important because they prove that the Government are in control of the public finances. We saw what happened when the last Government lost control: the cost of Government borrowing went through the roof, and that takes money out of budgets before they even get to public services like the national health service. That is why this Government are committed to our fiscal rules and will ensure that they are being implemented.
The Chief Secretary will be aware from his previous role as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee that one of the things that those who create wealth and invest in our economy need is certainty. Before the next Budget, will he ensure that he consults with business leaders and that a proper impact assessment of whichever taxes he will increase is done so we can minimise the damage being done to the productive capacity of the UK economy?
The Treasury engages with business leaders and investors all the time, and the one thing they tell me is that they are grateful this Government have brought back long-term, multi-year budgets, that we have the fiscal rules in place, and that we are reforming things like the planning system to make it easier to do business in this country. As a consequence, business confidence is increasing under this Government, having dropped enormously under the right hon. Member’s Government.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
My constituency faces a housing crisis, and inflation and out-of-control borrowing costs make it much more expensive to build social housing, and those costs are passed on to tenants. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is precisely why the fiscal rules are critical?
The fiscal rules are important because when we control the nation’s finances, we bring stability to family finances. We have all experienced the consequences of previous Governments losing control, and our mortgage rates and rents have gone through the roof. This Labour Government will never let that happen again.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Government committed to one fiscal event a year in the name of economic stability, but by having an OBR forecast and these constraints, they had only one lever to pull: spending cuts. This time, disabled people paid the price, and the Government have since had to row back. Does the Government regret placing those restraints on themselves over tax measures when OBR forecasts are published?
The Government are committed to the independence of the OBR. We will keep setting out future fiscal plans at one fiscal event a year.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that without the fiscal rules we would not have seen four interest rate cuts, which have benefited thousands of constituents across the country?
I agree with my hon. Friend that we have had four interest rate cuts under this Government which is good for mortgage holders and renters. Wages have increased faster than costs for the first time in many years, and the Chancellor has been able to invest billions of pounds in our country while keeping markets stable. That is the consequence of stability in our economy and in our politics and the fact that we are implementing our fiscal rules in the way we said we would.
With all due respect to the Chief Secretary, the Chancellor really should be here to answer this urgent question because the financial markets are extremely concerned about her wellbeing—the financial markets which, by the way, are asking for a 10-year yield now that is considerably higher than after the Liz Truss Budget. It is really important that the bond markets, which are aware of the hole in the Government’s finances, know how the Government are going to act, because otherwise we will see further fleeing of the millionaires and the wealth creators and the businesses whose investment we rely on for growth in this country.
I am not entirely sure what the question was, but I think the hon. Lady is exhibiting that she has learned some lessons from her party’s performance when she was last in government. Maybe she could share that with her Front-Bench colleagues in due course.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I am amazed that the Conservative party has brought an urgent question on fiscal rules. The Conservatives had seven sets of fiscal rules in 14 years; I mean, guys—and it is all guys—come on. The reason why they kept missing debt and deficit targets is because they kept cutting investment, meaning less growth and less tax revenue. Does the Chief Secretary agree that by investing to grow, we get our debt burden down?
This Government recognise that it was because of cuts, especially to capital investment through the austerity years under the Conservative Government, that we had such poor productivity in our economy. We are still suffering the consequences of that, which is why, as the Chancellor said at the Budget, we are choosing investment over decline.
A year ago we were promised radical change, but the only radical change appears to be in the Labour party itself, which has decided that if you are poor, old or disabled, it will be you who will bear the brunt of the cuts and on whose backs the books will be balanced. So were the fiscal rules always predicated on going after the most vulnerable and the weakest and those least able to organise and fight back, instead of taking on the rich, the powerful, the multinationals and the tax avoiders?
As a consequence of the Chancellor’s decisions, we gave Scotland the largest real-terms spending increase since devolution began, and the only radical change that we are now looking for is the Scottish National party to be kicked out of Holyrood next May.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) mentioned, there were seven different sets of fiscal rules under the previous Government. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), has announced that he has reflected on the mistakes made by the Truss Government and I am sure that international investors watching what is happening in the Commons would like to see sensible debate from all parties in the Chamber on the most critical challenge facing our times. Will the Chief Secretary therefore set out the important ways in which capital investment unlocked under these fiscal rules are allowing for economic growth and development?
Because of the Chancellor’s decision to update the definition of debt—[Interruption.] We have been able to unlock billions of pounds of investment into houses and schools and hospitals and GP surgeries across the country. Opposition Members may laugh but, as my hon. Friend points out, they have no plan to share with anyone at all.
In November last year the Chancellor told the CBI conference that she was
“not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”
Will the Minister, as the Chancellor is not in the Chamber, reiterate that promise today, or has the Chancellor mishandled the economy so badly that she is now going to have to add this to the Government’s growing list of U-turns?
The Chancellor was very clear that the last Budget was a once-in-a-generation Budget because it had to deal with the sheer scale of negligence and mess that we had inherited from the party opposite. I am very grateful now that we are one year into a Labour Government we do not have to keep clearing up their mess year after year.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Opposition have opposed all the tough decisions this Government have made to raise revenue, from VAT on private schools to the windfall tax. Has the Chief Secretary heard anything from the shadow Chancellor about how their plans would interact with the fiscal rules, if they plan on having any fiscal rules at all?
I might suggest to my hon. Friend that the public are grateful not to hear very much from the Conservative party after 14 years of failure, but if Conservatives Members wish to be competitive again, I would encourage them to set out what they might actually do with the country.
Plans to plunder disability benefits and the decision to hike national insurance contributions are examples of policies that disproportionately hit Welsh communities. Instead, we need fair policies, such as a wealth tax on assets over £10 million, an end to Government subsidies for oil and gas giants, and a clampdown on tax evasion. When will the Government’s fiscal rules enshrine fairness, where the ultra-wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share?
The right hon. Lady seems to have missed the fact that this Government have changed the non-dom tax status, which had been used by some of the wealthiest people in our country for many years; we have introduced VAT on private schools; and it is now much more expensive to fly in a private jet than it was under the former Conservative Prime Minister. As a consequence of the decisions that the Chancellor took at the Budget last year, we have given the largest real-terms increase in spending to Wales since devolution began, and as a consequence of our reforms to the Bill that we will be discussing on Wednesday, we have increased the base rate of universal credit for the first time in many years.
It is extraordinary that the Tories have recovered so quickly from their economic mismanagement that they feel able to stop apologising, and even to offer advice—if only the economic wellbeing of my constituents had recovered as quickly. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree with me that the Office for Budget Responsibility, like economists the world over, finds it easier to measure the economic consequences of funding cuts, such as the proposed cuts to disability benefits, than the economic consequences of investments, such as investing in people getting into work?
This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate my hon. Friend on her recent damehood, which is very well deserved. She invites me to comment on the independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast methodology. Given its independence, I am afraid I will not to that, but I will point to the fact that in the last forecast, the OBR was able to forecast an increase in growth as a consequence of our reforms to the planning system, which we welcome very much.
Since April, eight companies have personally approached me to tell me that they have either laid people off or have had to close their businesses after decades of trading because of the rise in national insurance contributions. How many businesses in the Minister’s constituency have told him a similar story?
I will not give a running commentary on my conversations with businesses or constituents in my constituency, but what I have heard from businesses in the defence and infrastructure sectors is welcome news regarding our long-term spending commitments, our reform of the planning system and our commitment to spending more on capital across our country, which will generate good jobs and good skills in every part of the country.
There has been talk about the previous Prime Minister. As the MP for the constituency where the lettuce that lasted longer than the previous Prime Minister was located, I can confirm that we all know from our constituents that she did more damage. It is good to hear Conservative Members finally talking about the small businesses that are the backbone of the British economy, rather than worrying about the millionaires. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to give those businesses even more certainty and confidence about the road ahead? The EU trade deal that we have done is a brilliant start, but does he agree that there is now a case for also looking at things like alignment by default, so that they can confidently know what kind of future they have under this Government?
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the trade deals that this Government have entered into with the United States, India and the European Union, with whom we got a great deal, especially on food and drink imports and exports, which will result in lower prices on the shelves of our supermarkets across the country. As my hon. Friend knows, we have committed to an annual summit with our counterparts in the European Union, and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues will set out further detail on those negotiations in due course.
George is the fifth-generation owner of Knight’s fish and chip shop in Glastonbury. It is a much-loved business in the town, but it is under severe pressure after the NICs increases and business rates and some of the decisions made by Ministers on our economy. Hiking national insurance hurts our small businesses and economic growth. So will the Minister back small businesses by overhauling business rates and scrapping the NICs hike?
The hon. Lady will know that when the changes in national insurances contributions for employers were implemented, the scheme was designed so as to protect smaller businesses, in relation to bigger business. She points to our fish and chip shops, which are often beloved in all our communities. I know from fish and chip shops in my own constituency that the price of fish, for example, has gone from about £100 to £300 a box. The price of oil has gone up following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and even the price of potatoes has gone up, often because those products are imported from the European Union into the UK. That is why our trade deal on food and drink with the EU as well as our investment into cheaper renewable energy will make a big difference to fish and chip shops such as the one that the hon. Lady mentioned.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
It is always amusing to hear the shadow Chancellor, who presided over a crisis in the welfare system, complain about this Government’s actions to restore fiscal stability. It is like listening to an arsonist complaining about the fire brigade. Does my right hon. Friend agree it is difficult to take the Conservatives seriously when they will not tell us what their plans are or even whether they support the spending laid out in the spending review?
My hon. Friend is right. If any party on the Opposition Benches wants to be competitive in the next election, it needs to set out what it proposes to do with the country and how it will pay for it. Time and again, whether it is the Conservative party, Reform UK, the Green party or any other party, it is all promises of jam tomorrow, with no idea about how to pay for it. The public have been burned by that already because of the last Government, and they will not be burned by it again.
Has the Chief Secretary seen the much longer-term forecasts by the OBR for the growth in public spending and the growth in debt rising to more than 250% of GDP in decades to come and the debt interest rising to 12% of GDP? Now that there is a gaping hole in the Government’s financial plans because of the votes last week and the U-turns on welfare reform, why does he think that he can play for time, instead of acting to give the markets confidence before they lose confidence?
The Treasury obviously monitors all OBR forecasts and considers them in detail. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is right and proper that the Treasury looks at OBR forecasts in an orderly way when it produces its forecast in line with the fiscal forecast. That is how we bring stability back to the public finances, and that is what we will be doing.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
The Leader of the Opposition has appointed every member of Liz Truss’s Treasury team to her Front Bench, apart from those booted out by the public. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a party that has no fiscal strategy but to believe “In Liz We Truss” cannot be trusted on any of it?
In a more conciliatory tone to Conservative Members, let me say that they have so few MPs they had no choice.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Since the Budget, some 270,000 jobs have been lost and borrowing is up by tens of billions of pounds. Just last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility indicated that it will lower its forecast for the second time since the Budget. Does the Chancellor still have confidence in the OBR, or has she lost confidence in it?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The consequences of losing control of the country’s finances, as the Conservatives did, caused real pain and a cost of living crisis for my constituents. Does my right hon. Friend agree it is only because of our sound economic management that we have seen wages rise for working people at a faster rate in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than in the last 10 years of the Conservative Government?
My hon. Friend is right. Whether it is investors, market traders or our constituents, they got sick to the back teeth of chaos under the Conservatives, whether it was the mess of Brexit or the change in Prime Minister and Chancellor every five minutes. Ultimately, that resulted in a Parliament in which people were worse off at the end of the Conservative Administration than they were at the start, and our mortgages and rents were higher as a cost of the loss of control in the public finances. This Labour Government will never let that happen again.
A £6 billion hole has been opened up because those on the Labour Front Bench cannot get those on the Labour Back Benches to vote for their own policies. As a result, No. 10 is today conspicuously refusing to rule out a wealth tax. If we tell business people and wealth creators that their money will get taxed if they leave it in this country, we drive even more investors away. Is it not the case that even if this measure is not ultimately put in place, over the next couple of months the speculation about a wealth tax itself will drive investment away from this country?
The hon. Member knows that the Chancellor will set out any decisions on tax one way or the other in the Budget, which she will do in the autumn.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that this Government have had the courage to make the difficult but necessary decisions in an effort to ensure sound public finances and improve the economy, while the Opposition have hid behind their mistakes and have no credible economic plan of their own?
My hon. Friend knows that this Labour Government are committed to fiscal and political stability, because that is what matters for family finances and getting this country back on track after years of chaos under the Conservatives.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I find it highly alarming that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not seem to realise that the cost of Government borrowing is higher now than at any time since the last Labour Government. All of this comes back to decisions about spending, so why, when Labour’s manifesto said that it would limit spending increases to £9.5 billion a year, did it increase spending by eight times as much—£76 billion a year—three months later in its Budget?
Because the Conservative party had not done a spending review since 2021 and let inflation go through the roof, and the cost of doing business was higher, along with a whole string of broken promises from the Conservatives. The sooner they reflect on their mistakes and apologise to the country, the better for all of us.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
With major investments announced by this Government that will directly benefit my constituents—such as the lower Thames crossing, Darent Valley hospital and school building renewal—does the Chief Secretary agree that this Government have the fiscal rules in place to provide the economic stability we need to renew our social and economic infrastructure, which was left in a terrible state by the last Government?
I thank my hon. Friend for demonstrating the real consequences of fiscal discipline, but also the fact that the Chancellor updated the fiscal rules to allow for investment in precisely the kinds of projects my hon. Friend mentions in his constituency—in hospitals, schools, better roads, public transport and more affordable housing across the country.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
With its NI rises, among other measures, last year’s Budget skewed the tax burden on to small companies. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has just laid out some measures that would skew that burden towards bigger companies and multinationals. Given that the Government’s No. 1 priority is growth, could the Chief Secretary explain why we are taxing small companies over big companies?
I think the hon. Member is referring to employer’s national insurance contributions, which—as I have set out to the House—were designed to limit the burden on smaller businesses, with bigger businesses paying more. That was the way that the system was designed, and that was the system that the Chancellor put forward.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
The only way out of the economic doom loop that the previous Government got us into is by growing the British economy again. If the British economy had grown over the past 10 years as quickly as the OECD national average, there would be £40 billion more sitting in the Exchequer without having to touch spending or taxes at all. [Interruption.] The Conservatives talk about the fastest growth in the G7—that is like walking the first 26 miles of a marathon and then bragging about jogging over the finish line. Growth was unacceptably slow under the previous Government, so can the Chief Secretary let us know what he is doing to get the British economy growing again, particularly changing the broken planning system so that we can build more homes and energy infrastructure here in the UK?
My hon. Friend speaks passionately, because his constituents know that they were worse off at the end of 14 years of the Conservatives than when they started. He knows that this Labour Government are committed to making his constituents better off at this end of this Parliament than they were at the start. That is what our investment in the renewal of Britain is about, and it is what this Labour Government will deliver.
We all know that taxes are coming; we just do not know on whom they are going to fall hardest. The country is nervous, with every family and every business wondering how much those taxes are going to cost them. Does the Chief Secretary regret the fact that that is leading to reduced domestic spending and reduced business investment, and is dragging the economy down overall?
I do not disagree with this Government’s fiscal policies, no.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I always listen attentively to the shadow Chancellor, in this place and in his many media rounds. Sadly, what is missing is a costed economic policy of his own. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Chancellor might be wise to spend some quality time in his beautiful Dorset constituency—
Andrew Lewin
Apologies—in his Devon constituency over the summer to develop some credible policies of his own? If he does not, he is not credible from the Dispatch Box.
I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be a benefit to the whole House that the shadow Chancellor will be in his Devon constituency for the whole of August.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Chief Secretary talks about fiscal stability and fiscal discipline. He will be aware that Labour-run Birmingham city council has been declared bankrupt, so I wish that skillset would be transferred to some of the people running that council. On a serious note, we still have a bin crisis in Birmingham; bin workers are still on strike, and it is forecast that they will not go back to work until Christmas this year. Local businesses and residents are absolutely fed up, so on a sincere note, will the Chief Secretary or his staff meet me and Birmingham MPs to bring this misery to an end?
I know that the hon. Member and colleagues in Birmingham are in correspondence and communication with relevant Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I point him to the fact that this Government have increased the local government grant by up to £2 billion by the end of this period—by 2028-29—and that we have given local government long-term certainty with multi-year budgets for the first time in many years, to allow them to plan for the future.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I have raised in this House on a number of occasions the many children in my constituency of Ealing Southall sleeping on the floor or on the sofa in mouldy temporary homes, due to 14 years of inaction and financial mismanagement by the Conservatives. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that it is only because of the fiscal and budgetary decisions that this Labour Government have made that we have been able to invest a record almost £11 billion in building new affordable and social homes for homeless London families, like those in Ealing Southall?
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the legacy of the past 14 years, where so many of our constituents are waiting for secure, affordable housing. That is why the Chancellor’s decision not only to update the definition of debt, but to allow for the creation of a new national housing bank means that we can direct billions of pounds into building affordable and social housing again. Those record levels of investment will make a real difference to the lives of families across the whole country.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury seems to have only one line to survive this urgent question on behalf of the Chancellor, and that is to make reference to the former Prime Minister. Can he answer a simple question, to which we have already heard the answer today? Are Government borrowing costs higher now under him, or under the former Prime Minister in September 2022?
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Conservatives are responsible for the dangerous dismantling of all our public services, stagnant wages and inflation rates that peaked at 11%. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree not just with me, but also with former Chancellor George Osborne, who said that the Leader of the Opposition has no “credible economic plan”? We should not be taking advice from a party responsible for 14 years of degradation.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are taking no advice from the Conservative party on our approach to the economy, given their dismal record.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Before the general election, the Chancellor said that this would be the most pro-business Government ever. She spoke recently at The Times CEO summit. Before she was introduced to the CEOs, the host asked how many of them thought that this Government are still pro-business, and not a single hand went up. Why does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury think that is?
I was not at the event, so I cannot comment on those discussions, but I point the hon. Member to record levels of investment in this country. We have £120 billion of investment from the private sector in the first year of this Labour Government—including, as the Prime Minister said last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, £40 billion from Amazon. We can look at water infrastructure, housing or digital infrastructure. The United Kingdom is a country that people now want to invest in. It is a stable country with a long-term strategy and with lots of great potential and assets, and we look forward to working with those business partners and investors to get the best deal for Britain.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Institute for Government’s review of the Government’s performance against fiscal rules found that the previous Conservative Government changed their rules in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2024. In fact, all of the sets of rules that existed under the Conservatives were abandoned because at least one rule could not be met. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that the Conservatives have not met a fiscal rule they did not change, break or, in the case of Liz Truss, blow up?
I thank my hon. Friend for his pertinent question. It rather begs the question of whether the last Conservative Government had any fiscal rules at all. Based on the experience of all of us paying our mortgages and rent, and looking at the cost of inflation at the back end of the last Parliament, the answer is no.
Who does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury think is most responsible for the extra 276,000 people unemployed since the time of the Budget? Is it the national insurance jobs tax, is it the business rates increases, or is it the attacks that the Government have made on long-term investment, whether through agricultural property relief or business property relief?
I disagree with the premise of the question. We are not attacking investment in this country; we are welcoming it. We are increasing public investment, we are doing deal after deal with the private sector, and we are welcoming significant amounts of foreign direct investment that will create good jobs with good wages in every part of the country.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
In the last 12 months, the Government have invested £5 million in North Tees hospital, £20 million in Billingham town centre and another £20 million in Stockton town centre—with police patrols seven days a week—£1 billion in local transport in Teesside and £4 billion in carbon capture and storage, and have rescued British Steel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the market’s confidence in this Government and this Chancellor of the Exchequer that gives us the fiscal ability to invest in Stockton, Billingham and Norton in my constituency?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being so successful. The amount of investment that he has secured for his constituency is clearly a testament to his ability to represent it. He is right to point to all those investments, because part of the Chancellor’s economic strategy is investing in the renewal of Britain to benefit not just his constituents, but all our constituents across the country.
Although I very much welcome the Government’s decision last week to roll back on proposed welfare changes, it has undoubtedly put considerable pressure on the fiscal rules. I have the greatest concern for the middle class, who get little help to raise their children, pay for their education or feed them other than child benefit, and who will feel the squeeze of a wage increase without an increase in the child benefit threshold. With respect to the Chief Secretary, and always conscious of the importance of looking after people who need help, may I ask how he will ensure that middle-class families are not squeezed further, which can only have the effect of them robbing Peter to pay Paul, thereby landing themselves in debt to both?
Let me point to the fact that wages are now increasing faster than costs—for the first time in many years. He also invited me to comment on childcare provision, which the Government agree is important to families, whether middle-class or otherwise. We have extended school-based nurseries and breakfast clubs in schools, and have subsidised childcare in nurseries across the country to help working families get to work and be able to afford to do so.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Following the election, I was deeply disturbed to discover that the close to £20 million of towns fund money that had been promised for Coatbridge by the last Government did not actually exist. It had been announced with much fanfare, but had not been budgeted for. However, thanks to this Government and their plan for neighbourhoods, that £20 million is now coming to Coatbridge. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must never go back to the fiscal irresponsibility of the Conservative party, which was always keen to promise but always failed to deliver?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing investment in his constituency from this Labour Government. He is right to point out that in the past his constituents have been given failed promises, whereas this Labour Government are delivering on their promises.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. My thoughts today are with the family of Anne Moffat of Old Harlow, who lost her life 20 years ago in the 7/7 attacks.
Does the Chief Secretary agree that part of the reason we have been left with such a fiscal mess is the previous Government’s decision to cut the number of HMRC compliance officers by 1,200? I declare an interest, because one of them was my mum.
I share the sympathies of the House with the family of my hon. Friend’s constituent.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that investment in HMRC had been cut over many years, which made it harder for tax to be collected from those who needed to pay it. The Chancellor has invested significant sums in HMRC to improve customer services for everybody who uses it, and to ensure that we are getting in the tax receipts that will pay for our public services.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that it is the very decisions made by the Chancellor at the time of the last Budget, including those on the fiscal rules, that have enabled this Government to invest £190 billion in day-to-day spending and £113 billion in long-term investment, and that this simply would not have happened had the Conservative party been in power?
I agree. As the House knows, when the Chancellor presented the Budget last year, she said that this Government “chooses investment over decline” for Britain. That was reflected in our spending review, which was investing in the renewal of Britain, unlocking billions of pounds as a consequence of the fiscal rules that the Chancellor had set out in the Budget—which were non-negotiable, and will therefore stay in place.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
In the context of spending decisions taken by the Johnson Government, the last Conservative Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, told the Transport Committee last week:
“A lot of promises were made to MPs and others as to the ambition, but it did not match the amount that was actually being set down.”
He went on to say:
“By the time I came into post I ended up with a list that was much longer than could be funded.”
Does the Chief Secretary share my anger at the way that the Conservative party tried to take all our constituents for fools?
I do. It is good that my hon. Friend has been able to raise that testimony from the Transport Committee, because it reminds us why the British people were so angry with the Conservative party after 14 years of failed promises, and why this Labour Government will always make sure that we deliver on our promises.
I thank the Chief Secretary for his answers this afternoon.
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Before we come to the urgent question on Iran, I remind the House that there is a criminal case currently before the courts in which the accused have been charged under the National Security Act 2023 with offences relating to the targeting of UK-based journalists. This case is sub judice, and no reference should be made to it during our proceedings.
There is also a separate case involving alleged terrorism offences in relation to a target in London. This case is not sub judice, because no charges have yet been brought, but hon. and right hon. Members will wish to take care to avoid saying anything that could prejudice the ongoing police investigation and any subsequent trial.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK’s response to the actions of the Iranian regime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have long had concerns over Iran’s malign activity. Iran’s continued support to aligned groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas, undermines regional stability. It supports Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine through the provision of unmanned aerial vehicles and ballistic missiles, and it poses a threat to UK nationals, Iranian dissidents and Jewish people in the United Kingdom.
This Government will hold Iran accountable for its hostile activities. The Home Secretary announced on 19 May that Jonathan Hall’s review delivered recommendations to tackle state threats. We are committed to taking them forward, including through the creation of a new state threats proscription-like tool. In April, we sanctioned the Iranian-backed, Swedish-based Foxtrot criminal network for its role in attacks against targets across Europe. In September, in response to Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia, we ended Iran’s air services agreement and stopped Iran Air flying directly into the UK.
We have placed Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, enhancing transparency regarding foreign influence in the UK. We have so far designated 31 individuals in relation to malign Iranian activity. The UK now has more than 450 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and entities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety.
As we mark the 20th anniversary of the London terrorist attacks, the victims, survivors and their families, and the emergency services personnel who responded that day, continue to be in our thoughts.
Two weeks have passed since the US airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Does the Minister have an assessment of their impact, and what is his response to the Iranian regime now prohibiting co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and its inspectors leaving Iran? Given Tehran’s refusal to co-operate, are the Minister and the Department in discussions with partners about applying snapback sanctions and other measures? Is he concerned that this demonstrates that Iran will continue to pursue its entire nuclear weapons programme? Given the information received through discussions with America, Israel and other intelligence partners, will the Government finally come off the fence about the strikes and agree with the Opposition that they were absolutely necessary? On our interests in the region, can the Minster assure us that he is taking continued steps to bolster the security of our military assets and personnel, and what assessment has he made of Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and the threats that they may continue to pose to our interests?
We agree that Iran can never have a nuclear bomb, but the regime is a fundamental menace in so many other ways. It sponsors terrorism across the middle east, and threatens our own country with sophisticated plots. What work is taking place across Government to respond to the threats posed to dissidents in the UK, and to those with family members in Iran who face persecution as the Iranian regime seeks to threaten and blackmail them? What more will the Minister do to take down the finance structures propping up the regime’s destabilising activities, and to stand with the brave people of Iran, including human rights defenders, who face the most barbaric oppression? With the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies in a weakened state due to Israel and America’s actions, does he agree that this is a moment for the Government to publish a serious strategy to roll back the regime’s malign influence?
Finally, can the Minister give an update on the discussions he has had with partners about the US-led plans for a ceasefire in Gaza, freeing the hostages, aid access and securing the removal of Hamas?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. I am afraid I will not provide a detailed commentary from the Dispatch Box on the extent of the damage from the strikes, for reasons that I am sure she and the rest of the House understand. I can confirm that we are in discussions about the snapback mechanism. As the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have said, we cannot see Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Snapback is an important lever, and we are talking with our E3 partners and the Americans about what role snapback can play. We hope to see a diplomatic solution, which is ultimately the most enduring way to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, but we will continue to consider all diplomatic tools, including snapback.
The right hon. Lady asked a range of other important questions. I confirm that we keep regional security questions, particularly in relation to our bases, under close review. Since I last had an opportunity to face her across the Dispatch Box, there have clearly been quite a few changes in relation to events in the region, including in our travel advice. I recognise that this has been a fraught period for those with interests in the region. I am glad to see the ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold. We are encouraged by the reports on the efforts to secure a Gaza ceasefire, but I am not in a position to provide much further commentary at this stage from the Dispatch Box, and I will not go any further than we have already gone from the Dispatch Box on the strikes against Iran.
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I wonder whether the Minister might be able to help us. We had before us the Iranian ambassador, who made it clear that he wanted to be able to continue to negotiate. Given the way in which the joint comprehensive plan of action fell apart and the fact that the Iranians were in the middle of negotiating when there was the attack by the Israelis, if a significant segment of the Iranian regime wants to continue to negotiate, what is Britain doing to ensure that we have jaw-jaw, not war-war?
Mr Falconer
My right hon. Friend asks vital questions. We do want serious negotiation with the Iranian Government about nuclear weapons and, indeed, many other things. The Foreign Secretary sought to play a full role in providing an opportunity for talks rather than conflict, but those talks cannot be spun out indefinitely. The deadline for snapback, which was referenced by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is fast approaching, so we are under considerable time pressure. That does not mean we do not want talks to happen, but they must happen at pace and with real seriousness.