Chris Philp MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  None more so than me. I will conclude by saying that this is an important technology: it takes people off the streets who would otherwise not be caught. The Minister has my support in continuing its roll-out and deployment.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am looking forward to this debate and to concluding it for the Opposition later. On the question of changing the burden of proof or undermining the concept that someone is innocent until proven guilty, the technology absolutely does not change that. What it does is give the police a reason to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person wanted for a criminal offence. It certainly does not provide evidence on which a conviction might be secured. In fact, it is no different from the police stopping someone because they are suspicious of them, and it is a lot more accurate than stop and search, about which I am sure the hon. Lady has views. It is simply a tool to enable the police to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person who is wanted. It certainly does not undermine the very important principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  That is a good point; we must ensure that the operating procedures are adhered to, and I will come on to that a little later. However, to be absolutely clear, if someone is identified as a match, a normal criminal investigation is conducted to normal criminal standards. Nobody is convicted on the basis of this evidence alone—or, indeed, on the basis of this evidence at all. Let me come to the question about racial disparity. When this technology was first introduced, about seven years ago, there were reports—accurate reports—that there was racial bias in the way that the algorithm operated. The algorithm has been developed a great deal since those days, and it has been tested definitively by the national physical laboratory, the nation’s premier testing laboratory. NPL testing is the gold standard of testing and this technology has been tested relatively recently. For the benefit of Members, I will read out what the results of that testing were: “The NPL study found that, when used at the settings maintained by the Met”— that is the 0.6 setting that the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) referred to earlier— “there was no statistically significant difference in the facial recognition technology’s accuracy across” different demographic groups. In other words, the technology as it is being used today—not five years ago, when there were issues—has been certified by the NPL and it has been found that there is not any racial bias at the settings used.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Small Boat Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  Shadow Home Secretary; thank you, Mr Speaker. I am afraid the Government’s actions belie the reality. Since they came to office, 17,520 people have crossed the English channel, more than twice the number they have removed. That is one and a half times the number in the previous four months and 15% more than the same period last year. In October alone, last month, 5,417 people crossed, three times higher than in last October. Tragically, since this Government came to office 50 people have lost their lives or gone missing—more than in the previous 18 months put together—and, tragically, that includes 16 women and children. This Government decided—they chose—to cancel the Rwanda scheme before it had even started. The first flight was due to take off, from memory, on 24 July but they cancelled it. Had they allowed that to go ahead and the scheme to continue, the deterrent effect would by now have started. We know it works, because it worked in Australia under its Operation Sovereign Borders about 10 years ago. We know the deterrent effect of returns works: it worked with Albania where we secured a 93% reduction in arrivals. Do not just take my word for it: the National Crime Agency said that law enforcement alone is not enough and we need an effective removal scheme to deter crossings. The Government’s announcements in Glasgow on Monday are simply not enough, and they repeat work that is under way already. The NCA and I are not the only ones saying that we need a returns deterrent. Just a few weeks ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen encouraged member states to develop their own returns hubs outside the European Union. Will the Minister follow Ursula von der Leyen’s advice and urgently implement offshore processing? May I also draw attention to the success that Belgium has had in stopping boats by the shore? Will the Minister ask France to do the same? Finally, because of their failings Labour are breaking their manifesto pledge to end hotel use, so will she pledge not to open any more hotels?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Small Boat Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the recent increase in dangerous, illegal and unnecessary channel crossings by small boat?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I echo your thanks and congratulations to Robin James, who retires today after 40 years of service. In this House, we all rely on the service of the Clerks, and I know that we are all extremely grateful to Robin for the work that he has done over four decades. I am sure that the whole House will also want to send our thoughts, prayers and best wishes to those affected by the terrible floods currently happening in Spain. Some British citizens are affected as well. It is good that we will have such ample time to debate the Budget, because it raises some extremely serious issues. On 29 July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that there was a £22 billion black hole. That claim has been repeated by Labour Ministers subsequently as a pretext for the tax rises that they planned all along. The Chancellor asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a report into this matter, which was published yesterday. It is called the “Review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits”—a snappy title. I have read that report, as I am sure others have, and nowhere does it mention £22 billion. That number is not there at all. In fact, the only reference to a number is found on page 2 and in table 1. Even the Treasury, straining every sinew, could only find numbers that added up to £9.5 billion, and even there the OBR says that “it is not possible to judge how much of the £9.5 billion” might actually have been realised. When the Chancellor said that there was a £22 billion black hole, yesterday’s OBR report now proves that that was simply untrue. Will she come here and apologise for providing that number to the House, given that the OBR report shows that it was simply not true, and certainly does not justify £40 billion-worth of tax rises—the largest tax rises in any Budget in history? Let me turn to election promises and trust in politics, because when we make promises to the public, it is important that we keep them. [ Laughter. ] I do not know why you are laughing, because these are your promises. The Labour party said that its plans did not require any extra tax rises. Yesterday, the Government announced £40 billion-worth of extra tax rises. They said that there would be no increase in national insurance, but yesterday they announced a £25 billion increase in national insurance. Let me turn now to their final fig leaf: working people. Apparently, working people would not be affected. In the last couple of hours the Chancellor herself, on the BBC, has admitted what we all knew all along: that working people would be affected, as a result of lower wages. In fact, we can quantify that, thanks to the OBR’s analysis—I am now quite a fan of the OBR. It published yesterday its “Economic and fiscal outlook”. It is 205 pages long, so some Labour Members might not have had a chance to read it all, but I have. On page 54, in paragraph 3.11, it tells us exactly how much of that £25 billion national insurance increase will fall on the shoulders of working people. The OBR says that “76 per cent of the total” will result in “lower real wages” for working people. So 76% of that £25 billion increase will fall on the shoulders of working people. That is £19 billion a year lower wages as a result of yesterday’s Budget. That is not me; that is the OBR. So perhaps the Leader of the House would like to apologise to those working people for the £19 billion pay cut she has just handed them. During the election campaign, Conservative Members warned that Labour’s plans would result in a £2,094 tax increase per working household, and Labour called us liars. I remember being on the radio and the TV, and Labour shadow Ministers at the time—including the Leader of the House, I think—called us liars. We now know the truth: £40 billion a year. That is £2,173 per working household, so about £100 more than we warned. Perhaps she can apologise for that as well. We also warned that the tax burden would increase to 37.4% of GDP. The OBR says that it will be 38% of GDP—higher even than we warned when Labour called us liars. That is the highest tax burden ever in our country’s history. So the Government were elected on a false prospectus. The OBR has now told us that will result in lower growth by the end of the forecast period and higher inflation. The truth has finally come out: the Government are going to tax more, they are going to borrow more, and they are going to spend more, and now we know who will pay: working people, to the tune of £19 billion a year.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House provide us with the forthcoming business?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is rather telling that only one Government Member appears to be excited about the prospect of the Budget next week. They obviously know what is coming. Let me start by congratulating Morgan Edwards on his appointment as director of customer experience and service delivery here in Parliament. He starts his role in December. Apparently he was previously employed at Legoland in Windsor. Quite why the parliamentary authorities thought someone with experience of presiding over squabbling juveniles was well suited to working here, I really do not know. I have to say that the business has been a little thin in recent weeks. We have a general debate today and a general debate on Monday—we have had no fewer than 10 days of general debate so far. Yesterday, we had regulations that would ordinarily be taken in Committee, and business ended early on Tuesday. We expect that at the end of a Government’s time in office, but it is a little early for this Government to be running out of steam. At this point in the 2019 Parliament, we had had 31 new Bills introduced; we currently have only 18, a third of which had been published or consulted upon previously, and those Bills that are coming forward are being rushed. The Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading on Monday, has much of its policy deferred into regulations, to be debated in Committee at some point in the future, denying the full House the opportunity to properly debate those important issues. When it comes to the winter fuel payment regulations, which we discussed previously, we should have had the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee before we debated and voted on that important measure. The committee has now finally written its report, and it says that it is concerned about the take-up of pension credit, that the Government’s forecasts of fiscal savings have question marks hanging over them and that we need a full impact assessment, which the Government did not bother providing. The committee has also called for specific changes to the regulations. Will the Leader of the House bring the regulations back to the House for us to consider again now that we have the committee’s report and it has recommended changes? I believe that the Prime Minister is in Samoa attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit. Will the Leader of the House confirm that he will make a statement upon his return next week? I understand that one of the topics under discussion is the question of reparations. My view is that it is totally wrong to be demanding money, amounting to as much as £18 trillion, for sins—very serious sins—committed hundreds of years ago. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is her view and the Government’s that it is totally wrong to entertain discussions about reparations in relation to things that happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago? I believe that is the Government’s position, and I believe the Prime Minister has ruled out even entering into discussions on that topic, quite rightly. Will she confirm that that remains the position of His Majesty’s Government? Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to organise a debate on foreign interference in elections—an important topic that concerns us all, and something that Members on both sides of the House have criticised. I understand that more than 100 Labour party staffers are enjoying themselves in the United States in the presidential election that is under way. Ministers have claimed that this is all spontaneous and has all been organised and paid for by the staffers themselves, but that claim appears, to put it politely, grossly implausible now that it has emerged in a now-deleted social media post that the whole thing was arranged by the Labour party’s director of operations, Sofia Patel. She wrote in that deleted post that there were “10 spots available” for campaigning in the swing state of North Carolina, and she said, “we will sort your housing”. It looks to me as though that is being organised by the Labour party’s director of operations. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is damaging to our national interest—this is a serious point—if the governing party, the Labour party, is organising interference or campaigning in another country’s election? [ Interruption. ] Does she agree that it will make it difficult for His Majesty’s Government to deal with the newly elected Administration in America if the other side wins, and that that will undermine our national interest? Does she accept that by engaging in organised campaigning in this way, Labour is putting party interest before national interest, and will she organise that debate? [ Interruption. ]

• 24 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House update the House on the forthcoming business?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Independent Expert Panel · Hansard source

  More

  I will not detain the House long, Members will be delighted and relieved to hear—I can see that is a popular position. I simply echo the sentiments that the Leader of the House expressed. The Independent Expert Panel obviously plays an extremely important role in scrutinising allegations of misconduct, and it is right that there is an independent mechanism to do that, free from political interference. I add my thanks to the thanks that the Leader of the House has expressed already to the outgoing members, and in particular to Sir Stephen, the inaugural Chair of the IEP. I add my commendation for the newly nominated members. As the Leader of the House has said, Sir Adrian Fulford is an extremely distinguished, very senior member of the judiciary, and the other three members being appointed have extremely impressive professional and legal backgrounds as well. I particularly add my endorsement to Wendy Williams, who I worked with at the Home Office when I was Minister of State for Police and Crime and she was one of His Majesty’s inspectors of constabulary and fire & rescue services. She certainly discharged those duties with great effectiveness, as I saw during my time as a Minister in that Department. I am only too pleased to endorse the remarks that the Leader of the House has made. Question agreed to. Resolved , That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 150C (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Chair and Members) and for a period of 6 years from 25 November 2024: (1) Sir Adrian Fulford be appointed as Chair of the Independent Expert Panel; and (2) Lyndsey de Mestre, Andrew Hoyle and Wendy Williams CBE be appointed as members of the Independent Expert Panel.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Voting by Proxy · Hansard source

  More

  Once again, I find myself in agreement with the Leader of the House on the substance of this issue. Perhaps it will become a habit; I do not know. The Opposition support the intention behind the motion. Clearly, if a Member of Parliament has a serious long-term illness or injury, it is reasonable that that Member can still exercise his or her vote even if absent. However, I should like to know how the threshold will be defined. Who decides whether a particular Member has or has not met the threshold, and what sort of evidence will be required? Might it be, for instance, a doctor’s certificate? That may be the kind of question that the Procedure Committee will answer. I should be interested to know the thoughts of the Leader of the House on those specific practical questions, but in principle we support this change.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by paying tribute to Alex Salmond, a substantial figure in our politics and personally always very popular across the House? We will all miss him. We also fondly remember Sir David Amess, whose crest is on the wall opposite me, and who was cruelly murdered three years ago this week. Sir David and his family will remain forever in our thoughts and prayers. I congratulate colleagues who introduced Bills yesterday. The Bill on terminally ill adults has attracted particular interest. Getting the details right will be critical. If the Bill proceeds, will the Government commit to providing the time needed in Committee and on Report for full debate and votes? We have just heard that the Budget will be delivered in 13 days’ time. There was not much enthusiasm from Labour Members when the Leader of the House announced that—I cannot imagine why. Labour solemnly pledged in its manifesto that it would not raise national insurance, so raising employer’s NI would break that promise, as well as hitting working people and destroying jobs. But hon. Members should not just take my word for it. Paul Johnson of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said that Labour’s NI plan is “a straightforward breach” of its manifesto commitment. The Federation of Small Businesses said it would be “a clear manifesto breach” and will “hit working people”. UKHospitality said it is “a tax on jobs”. The British Chambers of Commerce said it will “hobble growth and lead to…less money to invest” in workers. The Institute of Directors called it “a poll tax on business” and said that “the costs will be borne by workers.” My final witness is Rachel, from Leeds, who apparently used to work briefly at the Bank of England. In 2021, the Chancellor herself admitted that a rise in employers’ national insurance is, in fact, in her words, a “tax on working people”. Now, Labour Members could have been honest in the election and made the argument for the increase, but they were not honest; they pretended that they had no intention of increasing NI, to trick people into voting for them. However, this is not just about Labour’s election dishonesty. In a Radio 5 Live phone-in yesterday, I spoke to a man who is closing down his business and leaving the country because of the high taxes and increased regulation proposed by this Government. Another man phoned in to say he was closing down too. This Government are driving businesses to close and making successful people leave the country. Their policies will destroy jobs and reduce the amount of tax collected. I say to them sincerely that there is time in the next 13 days to stop and think again. I appeal directly to Labour Back Benchers, whom the Prime Minister is more likely to listen to than me, to please appeal to their Prime Minister to think again. Otherwise, his personal poll ratings—already minus 36%—are likely to plummet further. Speaking of the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on the special police escort for Taylor Swift? It is reported that the police decided initially that no special escort was needed. Apparently, the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, the Mayor of London and, inevitably, Sue Gray then pressured the police into changing their mind and providing one, violating the police’s operational independence. We now know that among the many freebies that the Prime Minister has eagerly scrounged for himself were tickets and a backstage pass to that very concert. And it was not just him: the Home Secretary, the Science Secretary, the Culture Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Education Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for School Standards and the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary all had free tickets too. What were they doing? Having a Cabinet meeting at the concert? Does the Leader of the House understand how bad this looks? The Government initially denied that the Met was pressured, which now appears to be untrue. Will the Government finally come clean and tell the truth about exactly what pressure was put on the Met and by whom? Finally, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on illegal immigration and asylum accommodation? It emerged this week that the Government are seeking even more hotels, at huge expense, to cater for the large number of illegal arrivals. Over 13,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel by small boat since the election. The Government must now regret cancelling the Rwanda scheme before it had even started. The deterrent effect would by now have kicked in. We have seen the same approach work in Australia. We have seen the deterrent effect work with returns to Albania. Even the European Commission is now looking at a Rwanda-style scheme. Will the right hon. Lady therefore consider reinstating the scheme, given that the European Commission itself is now looking at it? And why have the Government closed the Bibby Stockholm, leaving them instead frantically renting expensive hotels? The Government are failing on illegal immigration. The country and the House need answers.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House update the House on the forthcoming business?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, may I start by welcoming your new Chaplain, Rev. Mark Birch, to his role? I am sure we all look forward to working with him. Let me also extend warm birthday wishes to the Leader of the House. It is hard to believe, but today is a very significant birthday for her. The whole House extends warm wishes to her and her family. I am sure there will be a lavish party to mark the occasion, but I am genuinely concerned for the right hon. Lady. To keep up with her Cabinet colleagues, she will need, at a minimum, a personal DJ booth and a luxury penthouse to host the party in. I can see from the look on her face that she is a bit concerned about how she will fund all that. Since it is her birthday, I will give her some free advice: she should not follow the example of her Cabinet colleagues and send the bill to Lord Alli. Anyway, I wish her a happy birthday. I must start today with the shocking failure of the Government to inform this House first about the proposal to give away the strategically vital Chagos islands. The Government should have waited a few days until Parliament was sitting, or waited a few weeks until the Mauritius election was over, and told this House first. They showed total contempt for Parliament. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to apologise to the House now and explicitly commit that this will never happen again? The Chagos proposal is shocking: paying—yes, paying —to give away sovereign territory to a country allied with China, which might be allowed to place military or intelligence assets near the Diego Garcia base; downgrading a sovereign base to merely a leased base, when leases can of course be terminated; and ignoring the Chagos islanders themselves. The Opposition will oppose the plans every step of the way. Will the Leader of the House now expressly confirm to the House that there will be a Bill on these proposals and a CRaG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—vote on the treaty itself? Can she tell the House when that will happen? Members across the House are horrified by the Government’s callous plan to strip winter fuel payments from most pensioners, including 84% of those in poverty. The Government refused to provide the equalities impact assessment in response to a written parliamentary question from one of my colleagues, but just a few days after the vote they slipped out that assessment via a freedom of information request. That denied Members of Parliament the chance to see the impact assessment before voting, presumably because the Government wanted to disguise from their own Back Benchers the fact that over 70% of disabled pensioners will lose their winter fuel payment. The failure to disclose key information to this House appears to me to be a breach of section 1.3(d) of the “Ministerial Code”. First, will the Leader of the House apologise to the House for hiding that information before the critical vote, and will she ask the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests to investigate that as a potential breach of the ministerial code? If she will not, then I will. The public up and down the country are horrified at the Prime Minister’s insatiable and venal appetite for freebies. He has had more than any other MP in the last five years, totalling over £100,000: designer suits, £1,000 spectacles, pop concerts and stays in an £18 million penthouse, all paid for by Lord Waheed Alli, who was rewarded with a Downing Street pass and influence over appointments. Not a Government of service, but a Government of self-service, feathering its nest courtesy of Lord Alli’s extremely capacious credit card. Is the Leader of the House ashamed that the Prime Minister has been doing that at the same time as stripping pensioners of their winter fuel allowance? He has paid back £6,000 of the £100,000. Can she explain why it is £6,000? Will he be paying back any more? Finally, this weekend marks 100 days since the formation of the Labour Government. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I wouldn’t get too excited. It is fair to say that they have been busy: a chief of staff fired; millions of pensioners on low incomes stripped of their winter fuel allowance; inflation-busting pay rises for train drivers and the unions, without any performance improvements in return; and schools in chaos as a result of botched VAT plans that even the trade unions—even the trade unions—say should not be implemented in January. Many successful people, it turns out, are now leaving or planning to leave the country. In the Budget in a few weeks’ time, it appears that tax rises and ballooning borrowing are coming as the debt rules are rewritten, all breaking election promises. Perhaps it is no surprise that the Prime Minister’s personal poll ratings have gone down faster than Lord Alli’s bank balance after a shopping trip with the Cabinet. A recent poll showed that the public actually now prefer the last Government to this one. If they carry on like this, it will not just be Sue Gray who is in need of a new job.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Not true.

• 12 Sept 2024 · Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate · Hansard source

  More

  Well, there we are; we have some cross-party links already. In her maiden speech, the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) touched on a lot of local issues, including a desire to deliver a local power plant. I am sure that all of us wish her good luck in that undertaking. We had another maiden speech from the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), with a tribute to John Howell, his predecessor, who sadly suffered a stroke a few months ago. All of us wish him a speedy recovery, and I wish the new Member for Henley and Thame well in representing his beautiful consistency—not as beautiful as Croydon, but fairly beautiful none the less. In another maiden speech, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about his experience working on serious crime and fraud, and paid tribute to the Bolton mountain rescue team. I am sure all of them have our good wishes. That was followed by the maiden speech—they were coming thick and fast—of my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I understand that he got married during the campaign. That is a pretty bold move, I must say. I am not quite sure where his honeymoon was held—“Darling, come with me to a constituency committee room while we do some telling.” Maybe that was a euphemism, I don’t know. Anyway, I hope his marriage got off to a good start. He is a braver man than I am. The maiden speech from the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) included a tribute to our former colleague, Pauline Latham. The new Member spoke with great eloquence about the creative industries that are so important in that constituency. We heard quite a lot about local issues from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), including the local bus timetable in Coleshill and the importance of helping pensioners on the question of the winter fuel allowance, which we debated just a few days ago. We had a maiden speech from the new hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). I was going to say that he has some big footsteps to fill, but he has quite a big haircut to follow as well. We will see whether his locks are quite so luxuriant in 30 years’ time—there are some solutions available should they be necessary. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made another fine maiden speech, drawing attention to the gigantic carved image—the fertility symbol—of Cerne Abbas. I am sure he will be standing as proudly as the figure in that image. The new hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) paid tribute to his predecessor, Sir Graham Brady, who was kept busy with the shenanigans on the Conservative side of the House over the past few years. Hopefully his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, will not be quite so occupied. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the Hong Kong population that his constituency is hosting, who are fleeing persecution by the Chinese Communist party. Of course, where people flee genuine persecution, this is a nation that welcomes them. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who has moved places in the Chamber just to confuse me—it is easily done. He drew attention to the importance of the Scotch whisky industry, which I am sure we all support enthusiastically, as well as the North sea and the oil and gas contained under it, and how important it is that we are able to use that oil and gas here in the United Kingdom. In her maiden speech, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) paid tribute to Rehman Chishti, and talked about opportunity and the great thing about this country: that people from all backgrounds can go on to achieve great things. That is one of the values that unites us across this House, and I look forward to working with her on that. The new hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is a vet, and in his maiden speech, he made a reference to taking the temperature of people. I was not quite sure what he was referring to, so I googled how vets take temperatures, and after seeing the images that Google threw up, I have to say that I will not be asking him to take my temperature any time soon. It would have to be a truly desperate circumstance to require that. We heard a maiden speech from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), in which he paid tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch. Chatham is, of course, the home of the Chatham royal dockyard, which built the Royal Navy in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. That is a piece of history that I am sure she is very proud of. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) was also not making her maiden speech. She expressed support for local schools and referenced one of her predecessors, Sir Nicholas Soames, who stood up for Southern railway, a line that also runs through my constituency in Croydon. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to Sir Nicholas for the work they have done to champion commuters. We heard a very important speech from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who is in his place. The proposed closure of the Grangemouth refinery is an extremely serious matter, both for his constituents and for the country. That refinery represents 14% of our refining capacity, and I would like to see the Government do more to keep it open, because we certainly need it. I am running out of time, so perhaps my opposite number on the Government Benches, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), can cover the remaining three speeches. As you have requested, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by congratulating all those who have made maiden speeches today. It is clear that the future of this House is in safe hands with such eloquent speakers and such passionate advocates for their constituents. I wish everyone a pleasant conference recess and look forward to seeing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everybody else in October.

• 12 Sept 2024 · Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to wind up the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate for the Opposition. All of us who served in the House with Sir David remember him with enormous affection. We all remember his sense of humour and dedication to Southend with enormous fondness. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for opening the debate and for his words about Sir David, which I am sure all of us will remember for a long time to come. We have had something like 25 speeches this afternoon. It will be difficult to touch on all of them in such a short time, but I will try to canter through some of the more memorable moments. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), a fellow south Londoner, spoke eloquently in his maiden speech. He clearly brings profound personal experience of caring to the House and we look forward to hearing a great deal more from him during his time with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke with his customary passion about fire safety, and he made some extremely important points about the need to expedite the remedial work to the cladding on tall buildings, which we will be following carefully on both sides of the House. I congratulate him on his triumphant election, or acclamation, as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. We had another fine maiden speech from the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). I learned that her constituency is the setting for “The Wind in the Willows”, and we heard how she drew inspiration from her mother, a teacher, and her father, a police officer. It was not exactly a maiden speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) —perhaps he gave one some time in the mists of the 19th century, I don’t know—but he recalled those who served in the second world war and drew the House’s attention to the importance of strengthening the independence of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which he had the distinction of chairing in the last Parliament. We had another maiden speech from the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). We heard that the Mayflower set sail from Southampton and it has a premier league team once again, but I hope that Crystal Palace, the premier league team in my borough of Croydon, secure victory whenever we meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) also spoke. I was told that he was the best man at the wedding of the hon. Member for Southampton Test—is that right?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House provide a statement about forthcoming business?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The business announced for the first week back strikes me as extraordinarily light. There is only a single piece of substantive Government business and half the time will be taken up with general debate. This “Government of service” seem to be taking it pretty easy. In fact, after 70 days, only 13 Bills have been introduced. I looked up the record of the previous Government. I discovered that they introduced 31 new Bills in 100 days following the 2019 election. The right hon. Lady has quite a lot of work to do in the next 30 days, if she is going to catch up with Boris Johnson. Millions of pensioners are sick with worry following the vote earlier this week to strip them of the winter fuel allowance, including pensioners in poverty. I acknowledge and recognise the 53 courageous Labour MPs who did not support that appalling measure, but the other 350 did vote for it. I join the Leader of the Opposition in urgently calling on the Government to publish the impact assessment. On 8 July, in a speech to the civil service, the Prime Minister said that his Government would be “open and transparent”. Where is the openness and transparency here? The only impact assessment that we have seen is the Labour party’s own impact assessment suggesting that the policy would cause 3,850 deaths. I call on the Leader of the House to do the decent thing and publish that impact assessment. This is not so much a Government of service as a Government of secrecy. I also call for an urgent debate on the management of the early release scheme for prisoners. The Justice Secretary came to this House on 25 July and promised us that the “worst violent and sexual” offenders would be “excluded”—I am quoting her words directly. She also promised that domestic abuse offenders would be excluded. I am sorry to say to the House that that is not what has happened. The Napo general secretary, Ian Lawrence, says: “Members have shared examples where those with both Domestic Violence offences and Sexual Offences have been released”. He goes on to say that his members—prison officers— “are extremely disappointed that this has been denied during several media appearances by Government ministers”. He calls on the Government to correct the record, and I call on the Leader of the House to do so now: to correct the record and correct the inaccurate information that her colleagues have provided to the public. Some of the examples of those being released early, contrary to the assurances that the Justice Secretary gave to this House, are appalling. Lawson Natty, age 20, who is due for early release, provided the machete that was used to kill 14-year-old Gordon Gault, whose mother describes herself as “sickened” by the early release. Adam Andrews, who is also due for early release, brutally assaulted a 21-day-old baby, leaving that baby blind and paralysed. We were promised that serious violent offenders would not be released early. That promise appears to have been broken. Not a Government of service; a Government of shameful incompetence. It has been 70 days since the election and it has been a pretty terrible start to government: pensioners in poverty have been stripped of their winter fuel allowance, while there are inflation-busting pay rises for train drivers who already earn £65,000 a year; Labour party donors have been appointed to civil service positions; and there has been the botched release of prisoners, contrary to promises made to this House that violent offenders would not be released early. No wonder the Government’s approval ratings have plummeted at what, as far as I can see, is the fastest rate for any Government in modern times. The rates now stand at minus 36%. But not to worry: the Government do have one new supporter. Mr Djaber Benallaoua says that he will now be “a lifelong Labour voter”. The only problem is that he is a convicted drug dealer who is very happy about his early release. Not so much a Government of service as a Government for their donors, for their trade union paymasters, and for violent criminals who they promised would not be released early, but who they did in fact release.

• 5 Sept 2024 · UK Steel Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  Yes or no?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I take this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair and to welcome you to your place? Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A warm welcome back to everyone following the summer recess. I thank the Leader of the House for setting out those recess dates. That will make her popular with everybody across the House. She has just saved me from booking a flight that I would have had to cancel, so I am personally very grateful to her. I also thank the Leader of the House for confirming a debate on building safety. I know that the whole House sends our heartfelt sympathy to the victims of the Grenfell disaster and their families. I have personally heard harrowing testimony directly from survivors who lost loved ones. What they experienced was truly horrific. We must ensure that it never happens again, and that those responsible, including the cladding manufacturers who lied and covered up evidence, suffer the consequences, including criminal sanctions. Governments must never again ignore safety warnings, as happened over a period of decades. Like many MPs, I have been contacted by constituents — [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) is clearly being contacted by constituents as we speak. My constituents are desperate with worry about Labour’s planned removal of the winter fuel payment from almost all pensioners. I am glad that there will a debate and a vote on that next Tuesday. Labour Back Benchers may be less glad at the prospect of being whipped to vote to remove winter fuel payments from pensioners on less than half the minimum wage. Under the proposals, 84% of pensioners in poverty will lose the winter fuel payment. Is that Labour Members’ idea of a Government of service—leaving pensioners in poverty shivering at wintertime? Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to explain why he is choosing to fund huge pay rises for train drivers and other state sector workers while slashing benefits for impoverished pensioners. That is not the kind of change that Labour voters thought they would get from a Labour Government, is it? The Prime Minister also refused to say yesterday how much less energy support an 80-year-old on just £13,000 a year would receive this winter, compared with last. Perhaps he does not know the answer. Perhaps he does not care. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the answer is that an 80-year-old on £13,000 a year will receive £600 less energy support this year? One pensioner wrote to me saying: “the allowance meant I could turn the heating on. Now I fear hypothermia during the coming winter months”. No wonder the public oppose this policy by a margin of two to one. Several Labour Members agree, and have already signed a motion condemning it and will, presumably, vote against it. I hope that all decent Labour MPs do the same, but will the Leader of the House confirm whether, if they do, they will lose the Whip, like their rebellious colleagues last July? At this rate, it will not just be pensioners’ heating gone by Christmas; it will be Labour’s majority as well. I call on the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on ethics and integrity in the Government. The independent civil service commissioner—a former Labour MP—has had to initiate an inquiry into improper appointments by this Government. A “Government of service”? It turns out they mean service to their cronies and donors. It is just wrong to stuff party donors and cronies into what are supposed to be impartial civil service positions. Can Members imagine the howls of protest if the previous Government had done that? [ Laughter. ] To the civil service? No. The Times reports that the Chancellor did not disclose to her permanent secretary the fact that she had appointed a Labour party donor to a senior civil service position, which would be a breach of the ministerial code. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether The Times report is true? We have even seen a Labour party donor, Lord Alli, receive a Downing Street pass for no apparent reason—other than being a donor, of course. Who gave him that pass? Was it the Prime Minister, whose clothes Lord Alli apparently pays for? That is extraordinary. Has anyone else here had a donor pay for their clothes? I certainly have not. Or maybe Sue Gray issued the pass, perhaps forgetting to declare that Lord Alli also contributed to her son’s election campaign. Will the Government now come clean and disclose all the politically affiliated appointments that they have made to the civil service? Will they confirm whether the conflicts were disclosed, as required by the ministerial code? Will they provide a list of all passes to Government buildings issued to anyone other than Ministers, civil servants and special advisers? I strongly suspect that this self-proclaimed Government of service will not admit to any of those things, so later today I will write to the adviser on ministerial interests and the civil service commissioner, asking that they investigate independently these important questions. A lot has happened this summer—a lot has gone down, as they say—but the main thing that has gone down is the Government’s approval ratings. Just last week, More in Common found that the Prime Minister’s approval ratings have plummeted by 27 percentage points in a matter of a few weeks, plumbing a new low of minus 16%. It turns out that parading around in £16,000-worth of expensive suits paid for by Lord Alli, subverting civil service independence by stuffing the service with cronies and donors, and stripping impoverished pensioners of their benefits is not that popular. Even the Leader of the House will now have to admit the truth: this has been an exceptionally poor start to government.

• 25 Jul 2024 · Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, based on his long experience of the House. Amendment (b) does indeed address some of the points made in earlier interventions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the House for the consultations we have had in the past three weeks following our appointments. She has been collegiate and constructive in our conversations, and I look forward to those conversations continuing in that spirit. But I might be permitted one very small grumble: the motion we are debating today was laid relatively late on Tuesday evening. Under the rules, it could have been laid later, so I appreciate that it was laid a little in advance, but we did not have a lot of time to discuss potential amendments between the two of us, or indeed with other parties. I will make a request for the future. If we are considering motions that touch on these issues and seeking a cross-party approach, it would be really helpful to have some more time so as to be able to hold discussions between the Leader of the House, me and other parties to see whether we can improve the motions. I know that we have discussed this in general terms, but it is only when we see the detail of the motion in black and white—for example, the one on the Modernisation Committee—that we can discuss it in proper detail. I would appreciate having a bit more time in future, so that we can discuss that between us. That might avoid the need to table amendments, and it would enshrine the consensual approach that I hope she will take. Let me turn to motion 4, which is listed on page 7 of today’s Order Paper under “Business of the Day”. As the Leader of the House has said, the motion removes two exemptions that exist in paragraph 2 of chapter 4 of the guide to the rules, which means that Members will not be able to be paid for providing advice on public policy or current affairs, or general advice about how Parliament works. That is a broadly reasonable proposition that we are happy to support. I have two questions asking for clarification, which perhaps she will address in her summing up. First, if a Member is pursuing a paid activity that is not specifically to do with offering advice of the kind mentioned—for example, they might be a lawyer or doing work with a trade union on a paid basis—and the thrust of the work is not to do with that sort of activity, but they briefly undertake activity that might fall into the definition, how would the Leader of the House view that? Is there an absolute and complete prohibition, or is there some sort of materiality test that she would expect the Standards Commissioner to apply? It would be useful if she could provide clarification from the Dispatch Box. My second question was raised by a colleague. On occasion, Members may be paid for a party political position or a trade union position, in the course of which they might give advice. To give a specific example, it has been the case in the past that the chairman of the Conservative Party has been paid not as a Minister, but by the Conservative party. Would the new rule preclude that person, or indeed someone being paid by a trade union—probably on the Labour side—from offering the Conservative party or a trade union advice on public policy matters? I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could shed some light on how she envisages that working. Broadly, however, we support the changes and will not be opposing them—in the new spirit of cross-party working, which we are nervously embracing. For complete clarity, it is worth mentioning that there is a third exemption in the rules that the Leader of the House did not refer to: limb (c) of the relevant provision, which is contained in paragraph 2 of chapter 4. Limb (c) allows Members of Parliament to be paid for making media appearances, journalism, writing books, and delivering public lectures and speeches. For the sake of complete clarity, it is worth saying that the motion before us does not make any changes to that third limb—the Leader of the House will tell me if I have got this wrong—so Members will continue to be able to be paid for those activities. She might just confirm that, but it seems a fairly clear consequence of the fact that only limbs (a) and (b) are being deleted, and not limb (c). I will now move on to motion 5, on the Modernisation Committee, which appears on page 7 of the Order Paper. In principle, the Opposition will work constructively with the Leader of the House and her colleagues to achieve some of the objectives that she set out in her speech—we have no objection to the principle of the new Committee. Of course, we want to ensure that whatever proposals it brings forward are carefully scrutinised. On holding the Government to account, there are lots of things about the way this House operates that are very important for Opposition parties big and small, but also for Back Benchers, including Government Back Benchers. I am sure that Labour Members have heard a bit about private Members’ Bills, which provide a really good opportunity for Back Benchers on both sides of the House to bring forward what are typically quite specific Bills to bring about a change that the Government might not have time to legislate for. Back Benchers can bring forward a Bill to do something that is important to them, and I think we all want to ensure that is protected. Similarly, the Backbench Business Committee sets out the business for Thursdays. Government and Opposition Back Benchers can go before the Committee and organise a debate on a particular topic, which I did as a Back Bencher a few years ago. It is a really good way of making sure that an issue that matters to Back Benchers gets aired not in Westminster Hall or on the Committee corridor, but right here in the Chamber. I remember organising a debate on the persecution of Christians around the world, which would not necessarily have been debated on the Floor of the House; using that mechanism, it was debated. Westminster Hall also provides a great opportunity to raise issues of concern to a Member or their constituency. Opposition day debates are very important as well, because they offer Opposition Members a chance to hold the Government to account. There are a whole load of areas that we want to ensure are protected for Government and Opposition Back Benchers, and for Opposition parties big and small. I am sure that it is not the Leader of the House’s intention to undermine the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms, but if they are considered by the Modernisation Committee, we will collectively need to ensure that the rights of Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Opposition parties are properly protected. I want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. Friends, and I hope that the Leader of the House can offer some assurances that go beyond those she has given already. If she is able to offer such assurances, I will not move the amendments, but if her assurances are insufficiently robust, I will move the amendments and we will vote on them. I should tell Members that, typically, business of the House like this is not whipped. We will not be whipping Conservative Members, who are free to vote according to their conscience. I hope the Government are adopting the same approach and allowing Government Back Benchers to exercise their conscience. It is a long-standing tradition that the business of the House, which this is, is not whipped. We are each voting on the motion as individual Members of Parliament and not, I hope, according to a party political direction handed out by the Whips Office. That is the approach we are taking, and I hope it is the approach the Government are taking as well. To be clear, the purpose of the amendments is not to impede or frustrate in any way the objectives that the Leader of the House set out in her speech, which we accept. In principle, we support them and will work constructively with her and her colleagues, but some concerns have been raised by my colleagues—some of whom may speak later—who have previously served on some of the Committees, such as the Committee on Standards. In the last Parliament, the Committee on Standards was chaired by the former Member for Peckham, Harriet Harman. She was the Mother of the House, and a very distinguished and highly respected Member for many years. The Committee has done a lot of work in this area, and it is quite complicated. The way that the standards regime operates is not straightforward, and the questions are complicated. When Harriet Harman chaired the Committee, she spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and published the report to which the Leader of the House referred. Various existing Committees are relevant here, particularly the Procedure Committee, the Privileges Committee, the Standards Committee and the Administration Committee. They are all important Committees of the House and have all done important work in this area. They are all elected by the House, and at least one of them, the Standards Committee, has external members—I think one of them is a retired chief constable. The Committees have an element of independence, and I am concerned that the establishment of the Modernisation Committee might replace, cut across or in some way supersede or impede the work of the other House Committees, which are highly independent. With the amendments, I have tried to make a couple of things clear, so I am looking for explicit assurances from the Leader of the House on the following points. The first assurance that I am looking for is that if the Modernisation Committee is going to consider a particular matter, it will consider all the previous work done by the four Committees that I have mentioned—the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees—and will commission the relevant underlying Committee to do a fresh report on the matter in hand and report up to the Modernisation Committee. I think that is what the Leader of the House has in mind, and it is what she said to me privately, if I understood her correctly, but I would be grateful if she could be explicit and make it clear on the record that that is how she intends it to work. The second important assurance is that the views of the Speaker will always be sought and fully taken into account on matters that are relevant to the work of the Committee. The Speaker is elected by all of us— unanimously, as it happened—and his views and the views of the Deputy Speakers are important. The third assurance is that matters that would ordinarily fall to the House of Commons Commission will not be usurped, as it were, by the Committee. The Leader of the House said to me previously that the functions of the House of Commons Commission are not defined, but they are in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. In amendments (b) and (c), I propose that the Chairs of the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees be added to the Committee so that it has 18 members rather than 14. That would make sure that there is an opportunity for a smaller party to serve in that capacity and that the expertise of those Chairs comes directly to the Committee. In addition, I propose that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards attends the Committee. They would not be a member, because they would have to be a Member of Parliament to be a member of a Select Committee, but an attendee or an observer, so that the commissioner could offer his or her opinion on the matters before the Committee, receive papers, and give other assistance as required. All those amendments are designed to ensure that the existing Committees are properly taken into account and involved, and that their voice is heard, because they are important Committees with a lot of experience. If someone looks at some of these issues at first blush, such as second jobs, they might think that they are quite straightforward, but often they are not. There are all kinds of questions about people who have family businesses or a farm, or people who practise medicine or are doctors, that require careful thought. I do not want the work that has been done previously and that will be done in future to be lost. I am asking the Leader of the House to give explicit assurances. In her opening speech, she gave general assurances that those Committees have a vital role, and that the Modernisation Committee would draw heavily on their work and not duplicate what they do, but I am asking for the specific assurances that I have just set out. If she can give all those assurances, or a substantial amount of them, I will not move the amendments, because I want to proceed in a spirit of cross-party harmony if at all possible. The Opposition stand ready to work constructively on these issues to ensure that Parliament’s reputation remains the highest of any Parliament anywhere in the world.

• 25 Jul 2024 · Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee · Hansard source

  More

  On the basis of the assurances given by the Leader of the House, I will not move the amendment.