Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Timothy Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and welcome the companies from her and her colleague’s constituencies to Parliament today. As she knows, this Labour Government are committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Our strategic defence review and defence industrial strategy will also make defence an engine for economic growth, creating jobs and driving innovation in every nation and region. I particularly thank institutions such as Bournemouth and Poole college and Bournemouth University for their important work, and for their focus on developing defence skills for the future and creating jobs for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
There are reports that Jonathan Powell wrote a box note to the Prime Minister on the China spy trial. When No. 10 was asked about this, the official spokesman said that it was for the Cabinet Office to answer, and as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Gentleman is uniquely placed to tell us. Did Powell write a box note to the Prime Minister —yes or no?
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
Nick Timothy Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am slightly baffled by the answer that it is not the job of Ministers to vet witness statements when they are made on behalf of the Government. That is exactly the point; they are accountable. The Prime Minister said that the evidence that was relevant to the case was the previous Government’s China policy, but the statements published last night showed that they were changed to reflect this Government’s China policy. That is not the only way in which the Prime Minister’s story has fallen apart, but on that specific point, what he told the House was not correct, was it?
Chris Ward
It was. There was no political interference from the Government in any of the statements made. [Interruption.] It does not matter how many times hon. Members allege it; it was not the case.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Nick Timothy Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as always. I think he is referring to activity that took place under the previous Government, but let me agree with his basic point: the public do want to know what has happened. That is why the Government have put forward a statement today, to provide that transparency. What I think the public do not want, however, is Ministers, or politicians, interfering in the legal process, and seeking to influence, persuade or cajole senior figures in the CPS, including the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not think that is the right way to proceed, and I think that hopefully, if Opposition Members, and indeed Members throughout the House, step back for a moment, we can reach a consensus that it is not right for Ministers to second-guess legal decisions made by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Minister has comprehensively taken on several strawman arguments, answered questions that have not been asked, and stuck to his carefully constructed sentences. One example was: “Ministers and special advisers did not take decisions about that evidence, and they were not sighted on the contents.” But was any Minister, the National Security Adviser, any other special adviser or any senior official other than the deputy National Security Adviser, such as the Cabinet Secretary, sighted on the decision regarding the evidence sent to the CPS?
Dan Jarvis
Fundamentally, the decision was one for the DPP and the CPS. I could not have been clearer about the fact that this Government have not sought to interfere with the process.
G7 and NATO Summits
Nick Timothy Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I agree. All I can say is that, in fairness, I see on the faces of some Conservative Members disquiet at the approach that the Leader of the Opposition took. That is not surprising.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Under the 5% defence investment pledge, resilience spending appears to include energy infrastructure. Given the evidence about Chinese-made cellular internet modules and kill switches, will he say categorically that China must be kept out of all critical infrastructure, including wind turbines and solar panels?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. Obviously, we carefully review and monitor any Chinese involvement in any elements of security. But it is right that we now include resilience in our overall definition of national spend, and act accordingly.
National Security Strategy
Nick Timothy Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right that the UK Carrier Strike Group is in Singapore and he is also right to draw attention to the very important India trade deal that was reached by the Government just a few weeks ago. In recent months, we have reached trade agreements with the US, with the European Union and with India. Many people thought that that could not be done over a course of years, but it was done over a course of weeks. Each one of those agreements will help to strengthen our economy and deepen our alliances with key allies.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I note what the Minister said about social resilience. There is little point in strategising to defend our security and power in the world if we surrender our freedoms and culture without a whimper at home. Therefore, what will the Government do, for example, to stop the misuse of sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, not to mention the decisions of the likes of Bristol university and the Government with their proposed Islamophobia definition, to create a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in Britain?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman should have more faith in the depth and strength of British society. This is a society that has sustained robust debate over the years, and I think that it can do so in the future. It is a critical part of our national strength and a part of what makes this country great. I pay tribute to British society for being so strong and for allowing such robust debate.
Trade Negotiations
Nick Timothy Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
I think it was Tip O’Neill, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who said “All politics is local”, so if I am going to be toasting tonight’s deal, it will be with the finest Glenkinchie whisky from the East Lothian part of Scotland, not, alas, with an Islay malt or a malt from the outer isles. I pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a doughty, tireless and fearless defender of the interests of not just the Harris tweed industry or whisky producers but Scottish salmon farmers, who are a significant contributor to UK exports, never mind Scottish exports. In sector after sector of the Scottish economy, there will be significant material benefits as a consequence of this deal. We promised that we would have a Labour Government delivering for Scotland. Today we are seeing what that promise looks like delivered.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Minister just admitted that this agreement means the expansion of some visa schemes. The Indian Government say that the agreement “eases mobility for professionals” such as intra-corporate transferees and their dependants and independent professionals like chefs. It also says that the new double contribution convention creates a three-year exemption from national insurance contributions for Indians working here. Can the Minister confirm that this agreement will make Indian migrant workers in Britain cheaper to employ, relative to British workers, than they are today—yes or no?
Mr Alexander
The points-based immigration system is not affected. The UK has not given away visas or created new routes as part of this deal. It is existing business mobility routes that have been expanded for highly skilled and experienced professionals to cover additional sectors.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Timothy Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Petroineos has said that every employee made redundant will get 18 months’ full pay. The Project Willow report, which has come out today, describes how we can support a sustainable industrial future for Grangemouth, which is incredibly important, delivering jobs and economic growth. As my hon. Friend references, I have announced £200 million through the National Wealth Fund to secure the site’s long-term future, and that is backed by the £100 million Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal and the training guarantee to support workers into good jobs. Those are all actions that we are taking on this very important issue.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Today, the House of Lords considers the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025, which diverge from the proposals of the inquiry report and the Government response. The regulations introduce new exclusions, treat victims inconsistently and downgrade some previously agreed awards, such as that for my constituent Owen Savill. Will the Prime Minister remember the promise made to victims such as Owen and think again?
The Prime Minister
The victims of this scandal have suffered unspeakably. I am pleased that at the Budget we set aside £11.8 billion to compensate them for this appalling scandal. I gently point out that the Conservative party was committed, rightly, to the compensation but did not provide a single penny in the column to pay for it. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has been established and it began to make payments last year, with over £1 billion of interim payments having been made. We remain completely committed to co-operating with the inquiry and acting on its recommendations.
Ukraine
Nick Timothy Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. There is one person who does not want lasting peace in Ukraine, and that is Putin. We have to hold that centrally in mind, and we need security guarantees in place, because Putin’s ambitions show that if there is a deal, he will not keep to it unless those security guarantees are in place. Those guarantees are the guarantees, not of conflict, but of peace—which is, I think, what everybody in this House wants, including the right hon. Member. Of course it is right that this House should have details and discussion of any security guarantees and the right to express its view, and I will ensure that that happens.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Earlier, the Prime Minister said that Russia is a menace in our waters and in our skies. That is obviously correct, so can he tell us which individual Minister has overall responsibility for the security of our offshore infrastructure, such as wind farms in the North sea? Given the vital importance of military tech and hardware, will he join me in condemning the idiotic divestment campaigns that seek to undermine our domestic defence manufacturing industries?
The Prime Minister
The security of our infrastructure—wherever it is, but including underwater—is the responsibility of the whole Government, but most of all, it is my responsibility as Prime Minister to ensure the safety and security of our country. The threats to our country come in many forms, and I take that responsibility extremely seriously.
US Steel Import Tariffs
Nick Timothy Excerpts(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend is a doughty defender of the interests of Peterborough and of his constituents, and he is right to recognise that pride in steel making extends beyond Port Talbot, Scunthorpe, historically Motherwell and other locations of significant steel capability. On the specific point he raises, of course there remains a residual power available to individual companies under the Trade Remedies Authority to take action on dumping perceived to be happening. However, I reassure the House that the UK’s steel safeguards do and will remain in place until the end of June 2026, and I hope that offers him some comfort.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The attacks on the last Conservative Government might carry more weight if this Government were not planning to equalise our carbon price with the European carbon price, but that is by the by.
Given the conduct of China over the years, measures to hold down production costs in other countries and now President Trump’s tariffs, will the Minister accept that, if international free trade was not always a myth, it certainly is dead today, and will he commit to abandoning the theories and policies that follow his logic? Comparative advantage is used as intellectual cover for outsourcing production jobs and prosperity to countries that cheat the system. So can we see some trade realism and a strategy—a real strategy—to cut industrial energy costs, keep us making virgin steel, and get us manufacturing and exporting more?
Mr Alexander
If the hon. Gentleman has an appetite for trade realism, let us get real: the Prime Minister for whom he worked failed to do a US-UK trade deal. Let us also get real about the fact that the central underpinnings of the party of which he is a member at the time of the Brexit referendum—that we were in a less protectionist world, that we would have a functioning World Trade Organisation system and, indeed, that we would have major trading blocs seeking to take barriers down rather than put barriers up—have all been misplaced. His leader, the now Leader of the Opposition, generously conceded a couple of weeks ago that there was no growth plan following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. It is for this Government to clean up the mess that his Government left.
G20 and COP29 Summits
Nick Timothy Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank and pay tribute to her for her personal work on that issue, on which she has been pressing for a number of years, with considerable success. As she knows, I have met the veterans myself, and members of the Government will be happy to do so in future. It is a really important issue. She has been pressing on it for a number of years, and I pay tribute to her again for that.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On the Prime Minister’s plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030, can he guarantee that in that timeframe there will no power shortages, no blackouts and no energy rationing?