John Glen MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend and I have been Treasury colleagues. Officials often put forward this reform in the run-up to fiscal events, and she, like me, has resisted them. Will she reflect on the fact that significant landowners will have sophisticated tax planning regimes in place, that a large number of very small hobby farmers will be excluded, and that those who will be hit are modest family farmers? Even when those family farmers need to raise a relatively modest amount over 10 years, the impact of securing that funding is beyond them, given the margins they get from farming. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that this is, without doubt, a Treasury hit-and-run? The Secretary of State flatters himself to think he has secured the overall budget, but he has left farmers in a far worse state. [ Interruption. ]

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about mental health, but may I take him back to what he said about the Environment Agency? There is concern about the arbitration over whether Natural England or the Environment Agency has authority. South of Salisbury, in the Avon valley, there is a massive issue. The Environment Agency has done a great deal of work, but there is always a concern that Natural England will come in and overrule it. The arbitration over who is sovereign in such circumstances is a massive issue across the country, and I would be grateful if he could turn his attention to it.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Budget: Implications for Farming Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I spent most of the past six years looking at Treasury figures and I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman. I fear he is a victim of a hit-and-run exercise by the Treasury on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget. He would do well to think about the lessons learned from the pasty tax, because if he is not careful this measure will be of a similar dimension for this Government.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  What a great privilege it is to be sitting on the Back Benches and able to make a contribution freely after 12 years on the Front Bench, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary or Minister. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for his maiden speech and acknowledge what a wonderful experience it was to visit Wrexham about 10 months ago, as part of the Places for Growth work that I was involved in in the Cabinet Office. I hope that I can use the freedom I now have to speak candidly about some of the experiences I had in government. I want to make some remarks about that experience and the legacy of the last five years, talk about growth enablement, make some observations about some of the Budget measures related to that matter, and also speak for a few moments about unforeseen risks and my concerns about whether the Budget will give us the space as a country to deal with those risks. Five years ago, an election was called, with an outcome a few weeks later—I certainly did not think that three months after that we would be shutting down the economy because of covid. I was in the Treasury with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and we quickly had to institute the bounce back loans and the furlough scheme—exceptional infusions of cash for public services to keep the economy going. Consequentially, tax levels had to rise, and of course we had a spirited debate this year about those levels of taxation. Those of us who have been through several elections recognise that, given the politics of elections, there is a trade-off between candour and obfuscation. I observe that, after this Budget, the gap is wider than normal, and the assertion about the £22 billion black hole has not been legitimised. I look forward to addressing some of those issues on the Treasury Committee in the coming days. The Government’s core argument, though, is that there is a level of investment required to secure growth through improvements in productivity and by dealing with the lack of investment in recent years. I wish them well with that, because it is in the interests of our whole economy to see greater productivity, but I am profoundly concerned about some of the choices that have been made. There seems to be a surge of investment in the next two years, but serious questions about the settlements for non-protected Departments thereafter. I am concerned about the decisions made on public sector wage settlements and the precedent deemed to be given for other workforces in subsequent years to seek greater settlements without conditionality. Unless we drive higher productivity in the public sector, as well as encouraging investment in the private sector, we will not see the growth that we hope for. I am also worried about the costs—nearly £5 billion—of the Employment Rights Bill, and about the tax increases for those who employ people in this country. But I wish the Government well. The theme of today’s debate is some of the reforms needed to look after the interests of working people. We have seen a surge in the number of working-age people who are not in gainful employment. About 12 years ago, we decided in this House, rightly, to ensure parity of esteem between those experiencing mental health problems and those with physical health problems. But in truth, our benefits system has not adequately interrogated how to deal with intermittent mental health problems. We will have to work together constructively for the right settlement to get those people back into work. We must put the emphasis on what people can do, rather than what they cannot do, and ensure that people who are partially fit for work are encouraged back into work. Finally, I want to address our capacity, further to this Budget, to deal with shocks. In February 2022, we thought we were coming out of covid. I was at a meeting in my neighbouring constituency of Andover, and Putin’s Ukraine incursion happened. We had massive inflation and had to find £90 billion overnight. My concern is that there is not enough capacity to deal with the shocks that we could see in a very uncertain world—the energy shock might occur again. I want to be as constructive as I can be from where I now sit—that is a responsibility of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—but I am concerned that a number of the decisions in this Budget will not lay the foundations for the more productive, higher-growth economy that is expected and wanted, and I am very concerned about there not being enough in reserve for what we may face.

• 24 Oct 2024 · Strengthening National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I turn to another area of national resilience. National security experts have been warning about the Chinese Communist party’s use of genomics companies to harvest DNA data globally and dominate the genomics industry supply chain. Given the increasing importance of genomics for public healthcare, and the potential dual-use application of the technology, will the Minister confirm whether her Department is conducting a risk assessment on the data privacy, national security and ethical risks posed by genomic companies linked to systemic competitors?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement on the £100,000 interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected, thereby maintaining the momentum that was established earlier this year, and I thank him for his thorough statement to the House yesterday introducing the statutory instrument. Will he confirm that it is his intention to ramp up rapidly from the payouts to the test case cohort of 20 infected? Can he give the House as much detail as he can about when others in the infected cohort should expect to receive their payouts?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Ministerial Standards · Hansard source

  More

  The Opposition support the new Government’s aspirations for the highest ministerial standards, and we acknowledge the significant experience that the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff can bring to her role as envoy to the nations and regions. Why then, in breach of Cabinet Office guidance, have Ministers not published a word on her terms of reference, her new salary or her special adviser severance payment, and is she correct in her understanding that she is at the top of the list of new peers?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Paymaster General for advance notice of the statutory instrument being laid, as he has always given. He rightly reminded the House of the injustice that victims of the infected blood scandal have been subject to—one that has spanned several decades. I hope that we are now in rapid delivery mode. My role is to ensure that the Government are doing all they can to deliver compensation as swiftly and effectively as possible for the infected and affected, following the passage of the Bill under the previous Government. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is also my duty to work collaboratively with the Government on this matter, supporting them and scrutinising them where appropriate. To that end, I wish to set out some issues raised with me by representatives of the infected and affected communities. First, I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s second report of the Session, which found the explanatory memorandum to be “overly complex and technical, while lacking basic information about the policy”. To some extent, I very much sympathise. This is a very complicated matter. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this critical information should be easily accessible to all. Can he assure the House that he will do everything he can to ensure that the explanatory memorandum to the second set of regulations will be much clearer in language and in outlining how the policy will work practically? He rightly referred to the detailed policy paper that he published in August, with the case studies and the reference to advice and support, but the implication of what has been said is that an improvement can be made. On the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, I echo my previous comments in welcoming the Government’s pledge to deliver the first payments by the end of the year. I know that the Paymaster General and I align in recognising the paramount importance of delivering this compensation as quickly as possible. However, currently, there is no defined timetable for when applications can be made and when payments will be processed. Furthermore, I know the Paymaster General will find it as troubling as I do that groups of victims have previously described meeting the end-of-year deadline as “nigh on impossible”. We need to solve these trust issues. Can he outline the steps the Government and the IBCA are taking to ensure that payments will be made by the end of the year—just 10 weeks away? Can he confirm what proportion of the eligible infected community will receive their payments by the end of the year? There is a suspicion, of which I am sure the Paymaster General is aware, that achieving payouts for the previously mentioned user group of 20 individuals by the end of the year will be used to technically satisfy the obligation he undertook to get money out of the door by the end of the year. The infected community as a whole will want to know that all of them—beyond the 20—will receive their payments in their bank accounts, and what will be the interval between the end of the year and that happening. Please could the Paymaster General explain how the user group of 20 people have found the new scheme, and how quickly their lessons can be applied to the rest of the infected community? I understand that the IBCA recently confirmed its intention to invite increasingly larger groups of people to test the service before it opens to those who are eligible. Can the Paymaster General confirm when the scheme will open to larger groups? How many will be involved? Will they include all victims, including those affected from the infected estates? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned issues around the burden of proof. I seek clarification on the proof that victims need to provide. It appears that the burden of proof once again falls to victims, which risks going against the letter and spirit of both Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations. I recognise and am sympathetic to the challenges, given Cabinet Office officials’ advice to me when I was in his position. Locating medical records could be an issue, given that the latest case date specified in the regulations is more than 30 years ago. Can the Paymaster General outline the decision-making process of the IBCA in circumstances where medical records are apparently unavailable? What steps is he taking to ensure that rightful compensation is received when proof of infected conditions is not readily available? I would like to move on to affected persons. In his report in May, Sir Brian Langstaff made it abundantly clear that both infected and affected persons were to be given interim payments as quickly as possible. I am therefore concerned that part 3 of this instrument defines eligible infected persons but not the affected persons. Can the Minister offer some reassurance to the affected community and confirm that he has not ignored Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation for the affected community? The affected community are concerned that the Government’s delays in laying the second set of regulations for them means that many elderly parents of infected victims or bereaved partners will not live to see their rightful payouts as affected individuals. I acknowledge the drafting and timetable challenges, but it will be 10 months from the final report this May to the end of next March without any defined regulations or timetable for making a claim as an affected person. That will distress many in the affected community. I am absolutely sure that the Paymaster General does not think it is fair for those affected people to feel like second-class citizens, but will he explain what processes will be under way between now and the end of March, and will he look to publish, even in broad outline, a timetable for affected communities’ applications and the interval before payments will be received? I am also concerned that no impact assessment has been published for this statutory instrument. Parliamentary scrutiny from all sides needs to be balanced, and fairer legislation will ensue if we can have maximum information on impact in advance, so that the evaluation process can be better informed. I know the Paymaster General has previously said that the costs of the infected blood scheme will be recognised in next week’s Budget. Can he confirm whether the Government have calculated the impact and cost of the regulations? I shall conclude by thanking the Paymaster General for his work in this area and his transparency with me. This legislation is very technically challenging and difficult to get right. I have enormous sympathy and respect for him. However, I urge him to ensure that critical information is as readily accessible as possible to all victims, infected and affected alike, bringing as much specificity as possible to the timelines for those different communities to this House as quickly as possible, and outlining the cost of the scheme. For many of these victims, time is of the essence, which is why we must do all we can to deliver justice as quickly and effectively as possible. I remain committed to supporting the Government where I possible can and asking questions that are as reasonable as possible where answers still need to be provided.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when he assessed the June engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis supervised, he did not resist any of the recommendations from the expert group that interrogated the scheme—apart from four or five where he thought the Government could do better—and there was no attempt either by the previous Government or his to resist the advice of the expert group who are engaged with the communities?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I urge the Secretary of State and the ministerial team to take account of the listed place of worship grant scheme, which is particularly valuable to many churches up and down the country, and to not allow the Treasury to trim it back. It may expire at the end of March next year.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Canadian deal has not been signed in the last 18 months in order to take account of the agricultural sector’s concerns in particular? The pressing, immediate concern for which the Minister must provide a resolution today is how this Government are disposed towards agricultural property relief and business property relief. That is their concern now. The hon. Gentleman is making a political point—whatever happened previously, we have to focus on his Government’s responsibility in the coming two weeks.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I sought advice on the matter from our Chief Whip prior to coming here, Dr Huq.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It certainly is.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Restoration Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role, and I associate myself with her tribute to her predecessor. In recent times, the late noble Lord Cormack in the other place convened a meeting of MPs from cathedral cities and their deans, and there are plans to resurrect that meeting. Will the hon. Lady meet me to discuss how we can support her with plans to lobby the Treasury for capital grants for our great English cathedrals, including Salisbury, to maintain their presence in our country?

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

  More

  The Leader of the House will be familiar with the UK Health Security Agency’s significant presence at Porton Down in my constituency, adjacent to the site of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the new Government’s future plans for Porton Down? After the vaccine roll-out and all the work that was done there, things have changed since previous announcements were made. Many of my constituents are concerned and need clarity on this matter. I am applying for an Adjournment debate, but I would welcome a statement as well because the matter is urgent.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is my privilege to wind up the Opposition’s case on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. In their first 100 days, the new Government have come out of the general election at lightning speed, but at times they have found themselves struggling to keep the wheels from spinning off the wagon. It is perhaps no surprise, therefore, that this gesture at constitutional modernisation is being rushed through Parliament without pre-legislative scrutiny, without meaningful cross-party engagement and without proper consultation. This is a five-clause Bill with no detail on the next steps. The Government had 14 long years in opposition to ponder how to complete the changes from when they last addressed the matter in the House of Lords Act 1999, yet we see a Bill without ambition. It is incomplete, and without due consideration of the wider implications, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) set out so eloquently. It is a Bill that provokes questions that are not answered despite repeated assertions to the contrary; and, sadly, in line with many aspects of Labour’s first 100 days in power, there is no clear plan. There is the hope of one— I acknowledge that—but the complexity and variable geometry of our constitutional settlement and history and traditions need serious examination.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was a member of the Government for seven years and did quite a lot in financial services and other aspects. I totally recognise that significant steps forward were not taken on this matter and I do not deny the need for reform, but doing this in one step without stating what the further steps will be is not the right way.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Member takes the trouble to read the reasoned amendment, he will know the position of His Majesty’s Opposition. Let me get back to what his Government have not done. Their plan is simply to kick out 92 peers from the other place. I am afraid that just will not cut it.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make some progress, as there is not much time. As with many areas of policy, and as witnessed in these first 100 days, the Bill exposes that, despite all those months sat on the Opposition Benches, the Government do not have a coherent plan with the next steps set out.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think we should rule out people who are successful in all walks of life, but I would look seriously at all amendments from colleagues throughout the House. We need to come back to the facts of the matter. The House of Lords is not there as some ornamental, archaic decoration in our Parliament: it is an embodiment of Magna Carta—of power that devolved from beyond the Crown and beyond the Executive. So what is next? Is this all just a foreboding of the kind of parliamentary flagellation we can expect from this new Government? Well, not if we on the Opposition Benches can help it. Our reasoned amendment recognises that this Government have no recognition of the need for a reasonable process for constitutional evolution and reform. Our amendment is about the careful and considerate review of change, as well as the acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change. Surely it is reckless at least, and grossly irresponsible at worst, to seek to cast aside the experienced and independent voice of excepted hereditary peers, so many of whom play a crucial role in scrutinising parliamentary legislation in our nation—and some of whom have played an instrumental role in delivering government—without setting out a clear, coherent plan or narrative for what comes next, which should be scrutinised, discussed and refined. I hope colleagues will join me and support the Opposition’s amendment.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but it is the hon. Gentleman’s Government who are now in charge of the agenda before Parliament. It is for them to be accountable for it. I am so challenged by the poverty of ambition that exists on the Government Benches. We are given to believe that they are planning a new wave of peers, and the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff has reportedly been overheard saying that she is top of the list. The Prime Minister was previously reported as trying to make our political system better, because it had previously been undermined by “lackeys and donors” appointed to the other place. Sadly, it seems that as soon as he got into Downing Street, he discovered the Government’s own lackeys and donors were already waiting for him. I think that reflects this Government’s wider approach and attitude to constitutional reform and our institutions.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not hiding at all from that; I am saying that it must be one part of much wider reforms, which many Conservative Members would agree with. If we are to make a large number of changes, it is only reasonable when taking the first step to want to know what the next steps are, because we then address the final overall effect on our constitution and national Parliament.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a bit more progress before giving way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who, like me, has been here for well over four hours. Making one’s maiden speech is a key moment, and I pay tribute to the five or six Members who have done so amid 22 speeches from across the House, including some excellent contributions. I turn first, however, to my parliamentary neighbour and friend my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the newly elected Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who expressed very well the challenges of defending the hereditary principle, but in his usual way pointed also to the lack of coherence and made the case for a series of ambitious amendments that could be made to the Bill. He also made a very reasonable point about the case for life peerages for the hereditary peers who have made such a significant contribution, and that merits further consideration. I turn now to some of the maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) made a brilliant maiden speech; she talked of her experience working for the Tony Blair foundation, her commitment to fairness, her enthusiasm for financial education, and her devotion to her constituency. I wish her a long career in this House. The hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) spoke of the warm affection she had for her background in the trade union movement and her commitment to the people from the council estates and the working class that she comes from. I also noted her commitment to apprenticeships and the energy transition, and I wish her well in this place. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) on his maiden speech, too, and his commitment to serve the many not the few, even if his perspective differs somewhat from that of his father, who many of us will know. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) said that the Bill did not go far enough. I suspect he would want to take it to a different place than we would, but I wish him well in his time in the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) spoke of her deep commitment to Glasgow and paid a moving tribute to her brother David and the inspiration he has given her to serve here. There were a large number of other thoughtful speeches, which I will not have time to go over. I just say that it is right, as we all know, that there is a constant review of parliamentary institutions; at times, evolution is in order so that they remain relevant to the public that Parliament is designed to serve. The Government’s view of this evolution has also been on a journey. In September 2022, the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, made a speech at the launch of the Brown report making the case for abolishing the House of Lords entirely—I acknowledge that is a principled position—to replace it with a new elected Chamber. He was reported as saying that he would do that to “restore trust in politics”. The question that many will be asking today is: what happened? Here Labour is, in government with an enormous majority, and what is its big idea or grand plan to deliver on all that?

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will in a moment. I said that I would, so I will. As Lord Adonis has reminded us, “there is no consensus on reform.” The Government did have, as they kept telling us when it was the other way round, 14 years to deliver. They had 14 years to come up with that plan. Now they have an enormous majority, and they have just set out one step.

• 14 Oct 2024 · Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her response. On the steps of Downing Street on 5 July, the Prime Minister pledged to put “country first and party second”. Labour Ministers have been beset by a series of scandals involving freebies. The Prime Minister has claimed that this was all a “perfectly sensible arrangement”. Does the right hon. Lady still believe that? What gifts and hospitality can Ministers now accept? Can Cabinet Ministers continue to party in DJ booths in Ibiza? Will Ministers be banned from Oasis 2025 tour junkets, or was it just Taylor Swift that was a handout too far? What role did Downing Street play in the VIP escort for Taylor Swift, further to the free Taylor Swift tickets from Universal Music? Have all the political staff in the Prime Minister’s parliamentary office correctly declared their financial interests and hospitality received? The new chief of staff’s entry seems very empty. Have all ministerial donations in kind been declared at their full market value? Why do Ministers refuse to say, in answer to parliamentary questions, when the new ministerial transparency platform will go live? Is the sheer scale on which the Prime Minister benefits from others’ largesse now a conflict of interest? Will the hon. Lady confirm that the Prime Minister is taking a donation in kind of £100,000 a year from Arsenal football club, and will he now recuse himself from involvement in the football governance Bill? Amid scandals such as “cash for croissants”, “free-gear Keir” and “passes for glasses”, where is Labour’s new ethics and integrity commission, and what have Labour donors got in return for their generosity? What discussions did the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have with Lord Alli on ministerial and public appointments? Will Ministers place in the Library all the documents relating to Lord Alli’s “Operation Integrity”? Finally, can the Minister explain to this House why the millionaire Prime Minister cannot clothe himself without gifts from others?