Graham Stuart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has mentioned previous generations of politicians, and all of us in this House must recognise that we follow in the footsteps of giants. Tony Blair, Lord Adonis and others created the academy system that was built on under the last Conservative Government and brought about a transformation of English education. Why does the Secretary of State want to dismantle decades of work by Members across this House and bring about a gross socialist uniformity that will destroy the progress that has been made?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. Let me begin with the question of the need for a national inquiry into the rape grooming gangs. Given what has been said so far, I challenge colleagues who have opposed the inquiry to name a single proposal from the Jay report that cannot be implemented if we go ahead with it. It really is a matter of “and”. Notwithstanding the political theatre that Labour Members have tried to bring to the debate, the fact that both the Prime Minister and the safeguarding Minister have said that they are open-minded suggests that—sensibly, from a policy point of view and politically—the Labour party may move to the correct position. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), this is a Bill in two parts, which could probably most usefully have been two separate Bills. The first half concerns safeguarding, and, for the most part, my party and I support it; the second concerns schools, and that we most certainly cannot support. Rather than accusing our amendment of being a wrecking amendment, as the Liberal Democrats have rather disappointingly done, they should recognise that the second half of the Bill—the schools element—is the wrecking element, because it makes the important safeguarding improvements part of a Bill that cannot be genuinely supported in this House. There is a troubling theme; a misguided notion that the bureaucrat knows best, as colleagues have suggested—for instance, the proposal to strip academies of the flexibility to set competitive pay for their staff. If the Government were genuinely interested in the levelling up that has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith), why not, as Sir Dan Moynihan, perhaps the nation’s most successful headteacher and trust runner, said at lunch time today, give those academy freedoms to maintained schools? Why rip away the elements that have been used by academies to produce schools such as Michaela which are the best in the country? We have an ideologically driven Labour Government—that certainly applies to those on the Front Bench; I would not want to daub everyone behind the Front Bench with the same description—who cannot even bring themselves to congratulate a school that has been the best in the country for three years in a row. The Government are signalling that they do not trust schools to attract and retain the best teachers, and trust only the Secretary of State to do so. In advocating for new schools to be opened and controlled by local authorities, they remove the contestability. Notwithstanding some of the contradictions in the Secretary of State’s speech, she did describe competition as “harmful”. I represent Beverley and Holderness, and for many years I looked at schools in Hull, where there was a view, expressed sotto voce, that “It is the people here who are the problem”. Generation after generation was failed, and when the academies programme was expanded in 2010, what happened? We saw primary schools leave local authority control en masse. We saw that it was no longer acceptable for a local authority to use its democratic mandate to give a substandard education to the local population. We saw a transformation. We saw academy groups opening up, and teachers and communities seizing that. I cannot believe that Labour Members really want to tear this away when the evidence is crystal clear from the OECD PISA tables. On any measure, English education has become immensely better.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that issue?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that issue, will the Secretary of State give way?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. We can see from the attendance on one side of the Chamber how important charities are to Opposition parties of all sorts. We are united in opposing the change, not least because those who are the most vulnerable, such as users of Citizens Advice, are likely to see services cut. There is an £88,000 impact just on the Citizens Advice service in Hull and East Riding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to go back to her colleagues and change direction? No one voted for a Labour Government to attack charities and the most vulnerable.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that if it turns out that it will cost the NHS more to bring in the changes than it will gain, as colleagues from across the House fear, then it would be worth reviewing them? I know that she is not personally responsible for the initiative.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Health and Adult Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said that 12,000 patients had to stay in hospital beds because of a lack of social care, yet we have it kicked down the road once again. What will Louise Casey tell us that we do not already know about the tough political trade-offs that have led successive Governments to fail to create a truly coherent health and social care system, and what will he do to make sure that we meet needs today, as he exemplified in November?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner: Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have said that part of their inspiration for the Armed Forces Commissioner was such a role in Germany, yet Germany has a parliamentary armed forces commissioner. Why is there that difference and why, in line with what the Minister said in an earlier answer, can we trust the independence of this new appointment?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I talked about the need for fiscal discipline, one element of which is taking at least £12 billion of savings out of the benefits system, because we cannot continue with more and more of us out of work and out of the workforce. Most importantly, I also said that we have to grow the economy first, because that is the only way to sustain it. This Budget had the opposite effect, as the OBR has laid out.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who I am pleased to say honoured his words at the beginning of his speech, quite rightly. I think that is because he has been in this House for some time and knows the difference between legislative intent and legislative outcome. No one believes that the Minister on the Front Bench or other Ministers wilfully want to damage GPs and hospices —how could anyone reasonably want to do that? However, that is the effect of this Budget of broken promises overall, and of the particular measure on national insurance contributions that we are debating today. No one has really explored where this measure came from, but the genesis of it was actually a desire, in the pre-election period, to reassure those with long memories who thought that Labour was not a party of growth. In trying to reassure the nation that Labour was on the side of business, it was saying, “Economic growth is mission No. 1, so if you are an entrepreneur, you can relax, because we are on your side.” The other big fear about Labour Governments over time is that they will come along and raise people’s taxes. Labour therefore came out with very specific pledges and oft-repeated promises again and again, saying that it would not raise an array of taxes, including of course national insurance contributions. That is why Paul Johnson, who is an independent commentator, said that he thought this measure was an absolutely clear breach of that pledge. On coming into power, the Government said there was this £22 billion black hole, and Labour Members have mentioned it again today. I think the hon. Gentleman was notable in not doing so, because he knows there is no substance to it.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Given the competition on the Labour Benches, the hon. Gentleman is one of the more honest and up-front Members in addressing some of the issues. Does he regret the exclusion of the various groups we have heard of today, from hospices to social care and childcare? Will he urge Ministers to look at whether they can create a more coherent and joined-up approach, so that the £22 billion—or whatever it is—going into the NHS actually works to improve the healthcare of the nation?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. She rightly highlights interest rates and mortgage payments. Was she disappointed when the OBR’s assessment of the Budget suggested that interest rates were going to stay higher for longer as a result of these measures? I invite her to discuss the topic under discussion today, rather than the past Conservative Government. We can have debates on that, but what we are trying to drill into today are the actions of this Government and their real-world impact on those who can least afford it.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Back Benchers need to speak to their Ministers? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) suggested, the Government cannot have meant to do this deliberately. They could accept our amendments today or move some of the funds for the NHS—the £22 billion or £25 billion, whatever it is—across to this, because the NHS depends on social care and other services. At the moment, the Government risk turning something that could be a triumph for them into a disaster, both for the NHS and, more importantly, for patients and those most in need.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman can intervene to rectify that in a moment if he feels the need to do so for reasons of tribal loyalty. Again, the OBR said there was nothing in its calculations that supported or validated—I think the word used was that it did not “validate”—the so-called £22 billion black hole, but let me give way to him so that he can rectify that omission.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is most gracious for giving way. He is also a highly distinguished economist. He has talked about this record tax-raising element. What will the net value of the £23 billion or £26 billion be, after we have looked at behaviour change, reduction in corporation tax receipts and compensation of the public sector? How much of that will come into the Government coffers?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman, and it is good of him to show that tribal loyalty. He did not criticise the OBR, but it said that it could not validate the so-called analysis. The £22 billion black hole does not exist, and it is quite clear from the OBR that that is true. Let us, however, assume that the black hole is true: I think the Government are spending £1,270 billion this year, so let us assume that, in that £1,270 billion, this gargantuan black hole of £22 billion actually has veracity, while it does not. Having gone to the lengths of forcing even someone as up front and candid as the hon. Gentleman to feel obliged under tribal Labour rules to keep backing this measure, and having established the figure, one would think that the Government would want to come forward with a tax rise, if that is what they wanted to do all along. Alternatively, to give the Government credit, perhaps they came into office and found that things were much worse than was thought to be the case beforehand, in which case they would want to come up with a rational way of raising the funds with minimum possible damage. I suggest it could be said to be a fib, but let us say there is a £22 billion black hole and they need to fill it. The Government should come forward with sensible tax plans. The Government have reneged on their pre-election promises, so why not renege on this one, and come forward with a sensible tax that does not particularly disincentivise those who are furthest from the jobs market? That is what the reduction in the NIC allowance to £5,000 does, and we know that it is particularly going to hurt people are struggling to get back into work, perhaps after a mental health episode, or perhaps because they are young and are struggling to get into the jobs market. There may be worse taxes than the way this one will work out. I think £26 billion is the headline amount that will be raised and taken out the economy, but 76% of that in year 2 or 3—whichever it is—will come out of wages. By my rough arithmetic that means about £19 billion is going to come out of pay cheques, which is the very thing the Government were trying desperately to avoid doing. This measure will take £19 billion out of pay cheques, and because of the reduction in investment, the reduction in employment and the resulting reduction in profits, it will net only £16 billion. Then the Government, having got that £16 billion, have decided to compensate the public sector, and we know about this because of the changes the OBR put out at the time of the election. It had to make a correction, because it had clearly been asked and told to allow another £800 million or £900 million for social care, recognising the issues that have been raised so powerfully by colleagues today. However, that was changed and removed, and it had to make an amendment to its response. By the time we have taken off the compensation as currently restricted to the public sector, which I think rises to about £5 billion, that takes the net receipts to £10 billion or £11 billion. That is a £26 billion hit to the economy, a reduction in investment, higher interest rates, lower growth, and £19 billion removed from working people’s pay packets—the people who Government Members believe they are on the side of—yet the measure nets only £10 billion or £11 billion to spend on public services. It is truly a ruinous approach to raising the money.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When did the SNP do an about-turn on Scottish oil and gas? As far as I can tell, it seemed as opposed to its continuation as the Labour party is now in government.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Liberal Democrats did remarkably well at the election, pretty much on the back of sewage. Between water stunts and sewage, a record number of Liberal Democrats have been returned. I am pleased to say that the Conservative party remains His Majesty’s Opposition. Therefore, I urge the hon. Lady and her colleagues to support amendments 13 to 18, and new clause 1. She will find that exactly the same is achieved, but with the backing of His Majesty’s Opposition.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), we hear the hon. Gentleman’s critique of the previous Government, but we are trying to understand how imposing these costs on GPs at one end of the service and hospices at the other will remotely help the NHS and, more importantly, the people who rely on it. We would like him to explain that, not just slag us off, however much he might enjoy doing so.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, who is of course a doctor. In this and previous debates, such as Second Reading, it is good to encourage a discursive approach in the Chamber, if we are to be valuable. I hope that we will continue to gather in this Chamber, talking to each other and listening. No one would think less of the Government for making changes. I cannot speak for those on the Opposition Front Bench, but I would seek to give the Government some political cover if they found a way to ameliorate the impact of this measure on the system—and, more importantly, on the human beings on which the NHS relies. In 2021, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, promised a plan “to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share.” —[ Official Report , 8 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 295.] Yet all the analysis available to Government Members shows that those with the least will pay the highest price for this measure. In my constituency, HICA, a large not-for-profit provider of social care homes and in-home care—a brilliant organisation that has had the same chief executive for the past five years—was finally getting a surplus to invest in its stock, some of which is almost as old as me, and to give its staff something above the national minimum wage. But following the changes in the Budget, it faces a bill of £3.5 million, more than offsetting any hope of a surplus, which it desperately needs in order to invest in its people and stock. The money will be taken away from that good social purpose in my local area, and instead will go into the Chancellor’s mythical black hole—for payment of additional sums almost greater than the total income of many pensioners, and for pay rises, for train drivers, so that they can pay their union fees; and so that Labour Members can carry on all too rarely mentioning in the Chamber their sponsorship by people who dictate so much of what they share with us—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central aside. Finally, it is interesting in these debates just how few of the more than 400 Labour Members—they can all cheer on the Government Benches at how many Labour MPs there are—want to come and defend these measures. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) spoke bravely, but he looked a little world-weary. I think he has been going out and about in his constituency, so I am sure that he is hearing the same thing as me, but said a little more angrily, because he is responsible for it. I appeal to those Members who are not here to seek change. The 2012 Budget by George Osborne, crudely and rudely called the omnishambles Budget, included a measure to bring in 20% VAT on static caravans. The Treasury civil servants love dusting these things off—they hate an anomaly more than anything. Those are the very caravans that ordinary working people use to holiday on the coast. I did not, alongside colleagues, run my campaign in the press; instead, I built up support from Conservative Members and coalition colleagues, who realised how damaging that measure would be for jobs in their area, the holiday opportunities of ordinary working people, and an industry that is 95% manufactured in the UK. People told me, “Change is impossible—this has been announced in a Budget. You cannot overturn a Budget measure.” You and I, Madam Chair, having been here some time, know that that is not true. Politics is a matter of arithmetic. If Labour Members can build enough support among colleagues on the Government Benches—they do not need to do it publicly, and they do not need to tell us about it—they have every chance of changing this. The Whips and Ministers start getting spooked when 15 Members turn up. If Labour Members can get 30 or 40, they can make a change. They should not feel powerless. The Government could make changes. They could move £3 billion or £4 billion over to social care, hospices, GPs and the like. They could agree to our amendments. They could come up with some other solution. They have the power to do it. Stubbornness and perhaps a certain arrogance has crept in because of the size of their majority. Government Members, who go out to talk to their constituents more frequently than Ministers, will be in a great position to tell Ministers that up with this they will not put.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are so many places where the Government have spent it. Having claimed this £22 billion black hole, they promptly agreed a £10 billion pay rise for their trade union backers. Train drivers on more than £60,000 a year are getting £10,000 pay rises while in talks about a four-day week. Those train drivers are not available for the holiday season, because they are so awash with that backdated pay increase that nobody wants to do any overtime. There are so many other areas. We have GB Energy to invest in renewable energy. I was the Energy Minister until April, and there was no shortage of investment available for renewables in this country. Before anyone points to last year’s failure to get offshore wind, that was because of the price window that we imposed. We did not want to overpay for it. There was no shortage of appetite, as was shown this year. One reason why we moved to an annual programme was precisely to ensure that we did not overpay, but could bring on all the renewables we wanted. There are so many areas where the Government could instead not spend the money that they have chosen to spend. Fundamentally—we need this conversation, including in my party—one of the things that makes the Conservatives the most successful democratic political party in the history of the entire western world, I am proud to say, is that we believe in proper analysis and deferred gratification. We have to make sure that we have a growing private economy, because that is where wealth comes from. If we allow money to fructify in the hands of those who create wealth, it will duly come back to the Treasury with interest, as the Financial Secretary of Hong Kong said many years ago, in rather more pithy terms. The most important thing is to live within our means, and to recognise the importance of feeding the private sector economy, because it is only wealth from that sector that allows us to deliver the public services that we all want. I support new clause 1. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made it clear that he has concerns about the Bill’s impact, and I hope that the Minister can acknowledge that impact. At the very least, we should look back and check that the impact is, as I hope it will be, more akin to the growth-producing, foundation-fixing, black hole-removing vision of the Government. However, if by any mischance the combined Opposition parties are right about the Bill’s disastrous impact on the most vulnerable, the people furthest from the labour market and the rest, we should find out the truth, and whether the Minister or his colleague the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is correct. I also support amendments 13 to 18. The NHS is the centrepiece of the tax-raising and spending elements of this Budget, and this rise in national insurance contributions will contribute £22 billion—or £20 billion; I hear different numbers at different times, but I will stick to £22 billion—to the NHS. There are a couple of ways to sort out the problems, because the system is entirely dependent on social care provision, the hospice system and ancillary services, including primary care—the things that make up the NHS. In my area, when an ambulance goes to Hull royal infirmary, it may take an hour to get the patient in. That is because patients in the hospital cannot be got out of their bed—even though they are ready to leave—and into social care provision. The Bill will make that worse. Perhaps funding can be vired over to social care. Through the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), we are probing the Government and the Minister, who is a decent, honourable man. We are asking them to look at the issue creatively and ensure that the misgivings of those such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central are listened to.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Lady knows, 4 million jobs were created under the last Conservative Government. She has just talked movingly about patients stuck on trolleys in corridors. Could she explain to the Committee how the Labour Government’s policies in England will differ from the policies of the Labour Government in Wales, which has far worse outcomes and worse waiting lists than anywhere in England.