Kieran Mullan MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

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

  More

  May I politely suggest to the Minister that the time for his weekend reading was before deciding the policy, not afterwards? Farmers in my constituency, including Jonathan Vine-Hall, tell me that the change to the relief will make it financially non-viable to pass on his very typical 450 acre farm. Does the Minister agree with me that the likely outcome of that will be that disinterested investors will buy the farm instead, which is exactly what he seeks to avoid?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who showed real courage in talking with emotion, pride and passion, which is not always easy in this place. Today we are debating a number of amendments related to the strategic priorities of Great British Energy, and that will be the focus of my remarks today. I rise to ask the Government to assure the House that, given that this is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, they understand that one of the biggest challenges we face when it comes to decarbonisation is in relation to heating, and to make that a strategic priority. The UK has more than 28.5 million homes, and another 1.9 million buildings, offices, hospitals, shops, warehouses and more, the majority of which are heated by gas boilers, which also provide hot water. Nearly one fifth of all the UK’s emissions come from these buildings. The Climate Change Committee considers decarbonising heat to be one of the greatest challenges we face in getting to net zero, but that is not specified in the Bill. Getting to net zero by 2050 will require us to pull every possible lever available. GB Energy needs to encompass the full thermodynamic meaning of the term energy, rather than focusing just on electricity. Although there is much to be said for the current plan to use air source and ground source heat pumps alongside other methods of using electric to heat buildings, attempting to convert our entire housing stock to this approach will place enormous strain on our electricity grid and supply chains. When we consider this issue, there is one stand-out technology that will help us: geothermal energy, both shallow and deep. I am pleased to tell the House that there is cross-party consensus on this topic, and I have been able to work with a number of Members across the House, including the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and others to form the deep geothermal all-party parliamentary group. Although I have mentioned shallow geothermal, which includes technology such as coal mine water, promoted by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), my remarks will focus on deep geothermal. When I was first introduced to deep geothermal technology, my reaction was that it must be too good to be true: an environmentally friendly, dependable and cost-effective source of heat and power that can be found right under out feet—surely not. But over the past few years I have been pleasantly surprised to learn that deep geothermal is, in fact, just as good as it sounds. This technology uses the heat from naturally occurring sources of hot water deep underground to generate a large amount of usable heat and energy. In the UK, heat, rather than electricity, is the key benefit of deep geothermal, as that best matches the resources in counties such as East Sussex. This naturally occurring heat is a real resource—just as wind and sunlight are for other technologies, but unlike them it is there all year round whatever the weather.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right that the Government have made some big claims in this House, but the detail of the work and how to get us over the line in an affordable, cost-effective way is 10 times more challenging than that, and that reality is fast catching up with them.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Sanctions: Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity not just to give my support to the proposal to continue and extend sanctions, but to put on record my condemnation of the Iranian regime and to give my support to the women and girls of Iran, who have been so brave in fighting for their rights in the face of brutal suppression. Sanctions imposed on Iran come as we see increased hostility by groups associated with Iran, or by Iran itself, at an international level. Most recently, Iran’s two direct attacks on Israel this year, which the UK and western allies have condemned as escalatory actions in an already precarious situation, speak volumes about the threat that the regime represents. One of the purposes of the UK’s sanctions on Iran is to deter its Government, or an armed group backed by that Government, from conducting hostile activity against the UK or any other country. The removal of sanctions should come only when there is evidence that Iran has disengaged from that hostile activity, yet all we have seen is the opposite. Since May 2019, Iran has continued to violate the joint comprehensive plan of action implemented to limit the Iranian nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Furthermore, it is well known that Iran funds multiple groups across the middle east designated by the UK as terrorist organisations. Those proxies act to destabilise the region as a whole, but Iran’s activities are not limited to the middle east. As has been said in the Chamber already, there have been a number of threats to individuals in the UK emanating from Iran, and as the Minister outlined, it is now providing extensive support for the illegal war in Ukraine—both military and logistical—which is impacting directly on the lives of brave Ukrainian soldiers seeking to defend their country. As I said at the start of my speech, Iran’s terrorist actions sadly extend to its own people. We know that Iran’s people currently live under a violent, oppressive regime. In September 2022, Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian-Kurdish woman, was arrested by Iran’s morality police for allegedly not complying with the country’s Islamic dress code. Three days later, she tragically died in police custody, sparking a wave of protests across Iran and drawing the attention of the international community. Despite Iranian officials claiming that Mahsa Amini died of natural causes, the widespread protests that followed were a clear response to years of repression, with demonstrators demanding justice, freedom and accountability. The bravery of these protesters cannot be overstated. The Iranian Government’s heavy-handed response was brutal, with the UN fact-finding mission and Iran Human Rights reporting that over 550 protesters were killed by security forces. Those deaths represent the highest death toll seen in any protests since the Islamic Republic’s founding in 1979, and are a stark reminder of the dangers faced by those who dare to voice dissent. Sadly, the plight of women in Iran is not limited to the enforcement of hijab laws, but extends to many aspects of daily life, rooted in systemic discrimination that is codified in law. The situation becomes even more alarming when we consider the lack of protection against domestic violence. Iran currently has no law to safeguard women from abuse or femicide, and between March 2021 and June 2023, at least 165 women were killed by male family members in honour killings. That remains an ongoing and disturbing tragedy. I am also deeply concerned by Iran’s treatment of followers of the Baha’i faith, which the UN has referred to as “the most egregious forms of repression, persecution and victimisation.” In February 2022, Iranian authorities allowed only recognised religions to be stated on the new national ID card. In doing so, they deprived unrecognised religious minorities of access to many basic services. Without that ID, Iranian nationals are unable to obtain credit cards, driver’s licences or passports; nor can they buy property, cash cheques or apply for loans. That is clear evidence of serious discrimination against minority groups. I am proud that, at the 78th UN General Assembly under the last Government, the UK co-sponsored the Iran human rights resolution calling for Iran to eliminate in law and in practice all forms of discrimination on the basis of thought, conscience, religion or belief. Although that was a strong message from international partners, it fell on deaf ears, but the UK Government, alongside allies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, have made their stance clear. In September, our Foreign Secretary called on the Iranian Government to end human rights abuses and to cease the use of force to impose the hijab. We should continue to press the Iranian regime to respect the rights of its citizens, and we remain committed to holding it to account for violations through sanctions and international pressure. We must not turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Iran. We stand in solidarity with the Iranian people, especially the women and other minority groups who are leading the fight for dignity, equality and justice. Our sanctions regime is an important part of how we stand up for our values and for the victims of the Iranian regime both in Iran and abroad, and I enthusiastically support the motion securing their continuation and expansion.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Police Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome much of what the Home Secretary has said. The police officers we are talking about, including Martyn Blake, are often deployed to protect local communities from violent criminal gang members, as he was doing. Does the Home Secretary agree that for a local MP to describe one such violent gang member as a “well-loved” member of the community, and for the Runnymede Trust to describe as unaccountable a police officer who was subject to a full court hearing and process undermines, rather than builds, community confidence?

• 22 Oct 2024 · Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has identified a good set of principles for her review. On the Texan approach, does she think that it would be fairer to victims if, rather than us looking at extending early release further, we used the reward of the existing access to early release? She talked a lot about evidence, but she will understand that it is harder to evidence victims’ feelings about justice, and that risks greater weight being given to statistics on reoffending, and other information that the Ministry of Justice has to hand. How does she propose to close the gap in evidence relating to how victims and their families feel about sentencing?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Access to Primary Care · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met representatives of Martins Oak and Oldwood surgeries in my constituency. Both surgeries have ambitious plans to move to bigger premises so that they can see more patients, but they face numerous challenges, including the gap between the lease lengths that the integrated care board will support and those that GP practices can get developers to sign up to. There are other challenges that I am sure the Minister can help unpick, so will he meet me to see whether we can help bring those ambitious plans for new surgeries to fruition?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Old Oak Common Station Construction: South-west Travel Disruption · Hansard source

  More

  One of the ways in which we could improve the reliability of all our train services is through reform of working practices such as annual leave and weekend working. Agreeing a no-strings deal with ASLEF forced the Secretary of State into agreeing a no-strings deal with the RMT. How does she plan to recover from such a weak negotiating position for future rounds? What progress has she made on proposals—our proposals, I should say—for a pay review body for public rail workers?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In Bexhill and Battle we get to enjoy the amazing High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty, but it is expansive, covering more than 1,400 sq km. What advice did the Minister’s Department give the Housing Department on taking such issues into account when centrally imposed housing targets are putting pressure on the area as a whole?

• 12 Sept 2024 · NHS: Independent Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  As Labour embarks on a reform programme, may I ask whether the Secretary of State has read the report of the Mid Staffordshire public inquiry, which looked at the shocking patient neglect last time Labour was in charge? Reading it might temper the hubris that he is showing in the Chamber today, in the face of the challenges that his colleagues in Wales have certainly not managed to overcome.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to express my strong opposition to the Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners, a move that will strip vital financial support from thousands of my constituents—people who have contributed to our country and helped to build it. The impact in Bexhill and Battle will be profound: Age UK estimates that more than 25,000 pensioners will lose their winter fuel payment as a result of this decision. I hope the Government understand just how significant their decision is in constituencies such as mine. The Government say that they are focused on increasing the uptake of pension credit. If all those who are eligible to claim pension credit do so, though, the £1.4 billion that the Treasury is expected to save by means-testing the winter fuel payment will be dwarfed by the increase in the cost of pension credit, so the Government have to admit that, ultimately, they do not actually want all those pensioners to take up pension credit. Our pensioners deserve better. The fall-back of this Government since they took office is to blame the previous Government for all the unpopular actions they have decided to take. They claim the state of the economy is a reason to remove this vital lifeline for pensioners, but let us be clear about the facts. On a broad range of indicators, the situation they have inherited is significantly less challenging than the one we inherited in 2010. We inherited an economy just out of the deepest recession since 1955. Labour left us with public sector net borrowing at 10.3% of GDP; today it is at 4.4%. Unemployment in 2010 was 7.9%; unemployment now stands at 4.1%. However, from 2010 onwards, through all these difficult times, we made decisions to protect pensioners, and we made sure to keep the winter fuel payment. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. I ask the Government to listen to MPs from across the House, including some on their own Benches, and think again.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise the comments that the hon. Member has made about the economic inheritance, but does she not agree that, compared with the situation that we managed in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, the Labour Government are in a better position? They have unemployment lower than we inherited, employment higher than we inherited, the deficit lower than we inherited, and economic growth faster than we inherited. We, in partnership with the Liberal Democrats, managed to keep winter fuel payments in those circumstances. Does she not agree that Labour should do the same?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way, on that point?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that it is deeply disingenuous for him and other Labour Members to talk about the drive to increase the uptake of pension credit? He knows full well that if the Government were able to do that, it would wipe out the saving that they are claiming to make. They do not actually want people to increase their uptake of pension credit, because the Government would not save any money.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I will replace “disingenuous” with “deeply, deeply concerning”.

• 9 Sept 2024 · Bus Franchising · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. We on this side of the House are in full agreement that good local transport is something that everyone deserves access to, both for helping people to live their lives and for fulfilling the economic potential of all parts of the country. At the heart of our local transport services are buses. They are some of the most convenient, well-connected and accessible forms of public transport out there—crucially, not just in urban areas, but very often in under-connected rural areas. That is why, in government, we invested billions of pounds in the bus sector, including the vital support provided to maintain services during the pandemic. We rolled out thousands of new zero-emissions buses and introduced the “Get around for £2” scheme, saving millions of people money on their fares and helping to get passengers back on buses. Those interventions worked. Bus passenger journeys in England increased by nearly a fifth in the year ending March 2023, and we welcome this Government’s desire to build on our progress in order to improve services further, to get more routes running at better frequency, and to make sure that as many people as possible have reliable services that get them where they need to go. I am genuinely interested in understanding how the Government feel that this set of measures will achieve that. We are worried about some of the significant risks, which the Government do not seem to have considered. This legislation places greater responsibility in the hands of local authorities. We know that a number of local authorities face financial and organisational challenges, and although I do not doubt that there will be enthusiasm for making use of the new powers, running any form of public transport brings real challenges. Of course, as the Minister said in opposition, gaps in experience could be filled by support from the Department for Transport, but depending on the number of local authorities that choose to take up franchising, this could mean that significant central Government resources are required. Unless I have missed something, today’s announcement includes absolutely no funding to pay for increased capacity at the Department. What projections have the Government made of the costs, and how exactly do they expect them to be paid? It is the same story with local government finances. Make no mistake about it: this is going to cost money. Many bus routes, especially rural services, are loss making, even before we account for the additional resources that local authorities will presumably need to operate them. In his statement, the Minister did not recognise the enormous challenges that have been created by changing travel patterns post covid. If this Government are committed to providing services at 1985 levels, as he seemed to imply, they will need to commit to enormous levels of subsidy. I welcome the success stories in metropolitan areas that the Minister talked about, but such services operate in a fundamentally different space, because of the density of those areas’ populations. It means that if passenger numbers fall next year, the financial risk will be taken on not by a private company, but by the local council and, by definition, taxpayers. Again, given that there appears to be no funding attached to the policy, surely it can be funded only by increases to council tax or cuts to other local services. It is the same story when it comes to responsibility for capital expenditure. Will this now be the responsibility of local authorities? How exactly are they expected to fund it? As we recently made clear when debating the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, it might be the Labour party’s priority to undertake ideological reforms to bring the transport sector further into the control of the state, but passengers’ priorities are the price, performance and reliability of services, not who is running them. We want to hear how the reforms will make a difference to passengers’ journeys and their accessibility, frequency and cost, and how they will help to restore the number of rural services and make journeys cheaper for passengers—and not just through the generic pledges we have heard today, but through concrete commitments on which the public can hold the Government to account. The Minister made absolutely no commitment to increase levels of services or miles travelled as part of the Government’s “revolution”. There are some simple things that the Government could do for passengers, such as extending our “Get around for £2” scheme, which has been hugely positive for passengers and for the viability of services up and down the country. I am aware that the Chancellor is not Labour Members’ favourite person at the moment, but I encourage them to make the case for the cost-of-living benefits of the £2 scheme, as well as for the benefits of the winter fuel payment, in any hurriedly organised meetings today and tomorrow. The Government have got the wrong priorities yet again. At the end of the day, passengers care about the preservation of existing services, the extension of routes, improvements in frequency and reliability, and cost. We on this side of the House are all ears when it comes to what difference this policy will make for them and—not to be forgotten—who is going to pay for it.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to conclude the Committee of the whole House for the Opposition, and it has been a pleasure to sit and listen to another set of distinguished maiden speeches from Members on both sides. I join the Minister in the tributes he paid to the speeches made from the Government Benches. I pay tribute in particular to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for her moving remarks about her commitment to her daughter and to the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for his powerful remarks about how his life is inspired by the bravery of the woman who saved his father’s life. On the Opposition side of the House, we had maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) and for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds did a fantastic job of selling the tourist credentials of his constituency and proudly declared himself the Member for both pigs and lobsters. I am sure that his passion for the place where he grew up will serve his constituents well. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon spoke proudly of the history and beauty of her constituency. The House will be richer for her experience working for the War Graves Commission and her interest in foster caring. We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who used her previous experience as a rail Minister to explain clearly the changes that we need and have sought. She also highlighted the lack of evidence and arbitrary nature of the Government’s approach as well as the lack of thinking about the Bill’s implications at a local level for projects such as the west midlands rail hub. That brings me to the matter before us, where I am afraid my ability to find words of praise dries up. As my hon. Friend the shadow Transport Secretary outlined, we have been asked today to rush through a major change to the operation of our railways on the back of a rushed Second Reading and without all the benefits of a full Bill Committee. What exactly was it about giving stakeholders in the railway industry the chance to share their views in Bill evidence sessions that the Secretary of State was so afraid of? I wonder what witnesses might have raised—perhaps the fact that the facade of a simple solution to the challenges on the railway presented by the Secretary of State has already fallen away in the intervening weeks since Second Reading. On Second Reading, she praised the already nationalised LNER service while chastising private sector operators, warning them that they needed to get their house in order. I cannot decide whether the ASLEF leadership are just being unkind to her or have a mischievous sense of humour, because the day after crudely championing the no-strings deal they had secured from the Government, where did union bosses announce they intended their next round of industrial action to be? Not in one of the private sector operators that the Secretary of State is rushing to wrest back into public control, but in the publicly owned and run LNER. There could be no more definitive answer to the question of whether the Bill will make any real difference. If public sector operators are the answer, the Secretary of State might want to ask ASLEF why it described its public sector managers as brutal, bullying, promise-breakers. The risks for passengers and taxpayers are in stark headlights. Thankfully, the industrial action has been called off, though passengers’ travel plans were disrupted this weekend. It seems that we will avoid a protracted strike, but what concessions were made to ASLEF, and what involvement did Ministers have? We have no idea, and we will have a similar lack of transparency in future, if the Bill passes unamended. What of the private sector operators that the Secretary of State has been so critical of, and critical of us for allowing to continue? What can we learn from her dealings with them? Despite all her warm words to her Back Benchers, what has she done since Second Reading, using her existing contractual powers, to bring operators such as Avanti back into public ownership, if she really believes that will make a difference? She has quite literally spent years repeatedly describing it as failing. She has had almost two months to remove the franchise from it, which she could legally do if it were in breach of contract and not delivering, as she has repeatedly implied. I am sure that some of her Back Benchers will have noticed that she has not done that. It is yet further proof that she knows that the question of who runs the railways will not make a material difference. The Secretary of State knows that bringing Avanti and others into public ownership will not miraculously solve anything. In fact, the seven most punctual operators last year were private sector operators. Of the seven worst performing operators for cancellations in 2023-24, four were publicly run. At the start of the Committee, the shadow Transport Secretary outlined a number of important questions, which I hoped the Minister would answer in support of his argument that we should vote with him tonight. How will accountability for improving performance be achieved? How will costs be controlled? How will innovation and reform be driven forward? How will pay negotiations be conducted fairly for taxpayers? Those are basic questions that, after 14 years, Labour should be able to answer, but we will vote tonight with them unanswered. I want services to improve—in that respect, we all want the same thing—but the Bill as is has little chance of making that happen. It will just result in back-room deals that will, more likely, put union bosses first and bring no guarantees of improved performance for passengers. I respect and value railway staff, but Governments have wider responsibilities to taxpayers. The Government have the right to proceed anyway, but our amendments aim to at least ensure accountability and transparency, and would make passengers, not union bosses, the focus. We seek to ensure the best use of the Committee’s time, so we will not press amendment 18 to a Division, but with permission of the Chair, we will press amendments 14 and 17 to a vote, as the ones most able to secure the best version of the Bill. Amendment 14 makes it crystal clear that the primary duty of public sector operators is to passengers. Whatever ideological change this Government make to the ownership of the railways, that should never change. Amendment 17 aims to prevent a repetition of the no-strings deal given by Labour to its union boss donors, and to ensure independence in the process. Time and again, Labour Ministers have supported the importance of independent advice in determining the pay of public sector workers. Every single Labour MP voting against this amendment lays bare the stranglehold that the rail union bosses have over their Prime Minister and Secretary of State. If they single them out for special treatment, they will need to justify to other public sector workers in their constituencies why rail union bosses are exempt from the processes that to apply to teachers, soldiers, nurses and millions of other staff. To reiterate, we on the Opposition Benches are in agreement that change is needed, but practicality and what works should come first, not this rushed, ideological approach. Members in all parts of the Chamber can see that our amendments simply create safeguards for passengers and taxpayers, and ensure transparency and fairness. I hope that Government Members can see the benefit of that, and agree, even if they are convinced of the benefits of nationalisation, that there are better ways to do it. In that spirit, I call on them and all Members to support our amendments, and to deliver a better Bill in the Division Lobbies this evening. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Future provision of services Amendment proposed : 14, page 2, line 17, at end insert— “(1BA) Every contract made in accordance with subsection (1A) shall place a duty on the public sector company to consider the needs of— (a) passengers; (b) residents of rural areas; (c) residents of areas underserved by the rail network; and (d) the wider rail network when considering making changes to existing service levels.” — (Helen Whately.) Question put, That the amendment be made. The Committee proceeded to a Division .

• 29 Jul 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  A few days ago, the Home Office published a notice about the use of the Northeye detention centre in my constituency, telling residents very little except that no decision had been made. As a matter of urgency, will the Home Office publish what options it is considering for the centre’s use and commit to a timetable for telling residents when it will come to at least a provisional decision that I and my constituents can feed into?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that we also saw an increase of more than 89% in passenger numbers on our railways, and a record level of investment. If taxpayers in other countries want to invest in our railway services, I welcome that. As the shadow Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, we have proved our lack of adherence to ideology by running, when necessary, a number of private sector operators. The point that the Labour Government have to answer is this: if they are so concerned about Avanti and other private sector operators, they have the necessary powers and could do that tomorrow. If they are so convinced of their ability to sort all this out simply through nationalisation—if they are so convinced that Avanti’s performance is one that requires them to step in—let them do it tomorrow. They are not in opposition any more, so they can take steps to do things that they criticise us for not doing. However, I am afraid that this is the same old Labour: more government good, private sector bad; unions first, passengers last. We on this side of the House have seen it and heard it all before, and we will make sure that everyone knows what Labour has spent its time focusing on and what it has put first when legislating here, politics and ideology, instead of focusing on what will actually make a difference to passengers.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The challenge that Labour now has to face is whether they choose taxpayers or fare payers to meet the burden of the cost of the railways. In fact, in recent years we kept rail fare rises below inflation, and we have yet to hear a similar commitment from the Government. The impact assessment on the policy is very clear about what the Government have committed to achieve: absolutely nothing. It says it in black and white, on page 3: “specific quantified targets for each objective have not been set”. So clearly that leaves us on the Conservative Benches to hold them to account. I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister can address in his closing remarks. First, what will be the exact timetable for renationalisation? We might assume that the Government are rushing to do this so that they can begin with Greater Anglia and West Midlands Trains in September, but all they have said is that they want all the contracts nationalised by October 2027. The Minister will understand the uncertainty that will create for the sector, so can he confirm a more detailed plan to the House for making use of the powers they are asking for? Secondly, what will be the approach on nationalising terms and conditions? The Minister will know there are a variety of working practices across the railway network, many of them clearly not in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers—for example, the varied approach on mandatory Sunday working, where clearly passengers would be better served by that becoming standard; or annual leave, where again passengers would experience less delays and cancellations if drivers were required to give a reasonable amount of notice. Will the Government introduce a standard contract that prioritises the terms and conditions across the industry that will benefit passengers and taxpayers, or will they be letting the unions dictate a standardised contract that puts the unions first and passengers last? Thirdly, what plans does the Minister have to secure increased passenger numbers, by how much and by when? We have seen a huge increase in passenger growth since the introduction of the train operating companies. What will take the place of contract incentives to secure that growth in future? Fourthly, on modernisation, people up and down the country have seen the explosion of technology into our workplaces, but all across the network modernisation is blocked and frustrated with demands of more money from the unions for the introduction of technology. What plans do the Government have, as they directly take over running the railways, to ensure that technological innovation can be implemented across the network without undue barriers or union demands getting in the way? Fifthly, when it comes to funding, how will they be reallocating the theoretical money saved? They argue they will save £150 million from management fees. Reinvesting that across track and train would mean, in total, a 0.5% to 0.75% increase in the overall annual budget. They need to tell us what exactly it is they will be doing with that money that is apparently going to radically improve our railways. Sixthly, what are the balance sheet implications? The franchising model allowed the purchase of new trains and other investments to be made with no impact on public debt. Will Labour be adding those costs to public debt in future as yet another excuse for their inevitable tax rises? Finally, what are the Bill’s implications, direct or indirect, for open-access operators? Whatever the Government may say, I am afraid that the implication of their words and actions is that they do not want the private sector running train services, so are they going to turn their sights on those operators next? If they truly believe in what they are doing—if it is not just designed to appease the left wing of their party—they will have to justify their own inconsistency. It seems pretty clear that this, the Government’s political priority, is the wrong approach at the wrong time. They should be focusing on getting their union backers to stop frustrating reform of our railways. They should be focusing on taking forward our plans for Great British Railways. They should, at the very least, be transparent with the public about the implications of this rushed plan for fares, punctuality and reliability. There is consensus in the House that a new way of working was needed, and we had begun the process of bringing that forward, but Labour Members are more concerned with re-fighting the political battles of the 1970s and 1980s. Whatever they may say, these are the same old ideas, this is the same old ideology, and this is the same old Labour party.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your new role. I want to begin by paying tribute to the previous Rail Minister, my constituency predecessor Huw Merriman. I saw at first hand how hard he worked with Members across the House to deal with their transport issues, and I have since come to learn how hard he also worked as a constituency MP. It is a pleasure to wind up this debate for the Opposition and to have sat and listened to another set of accomplished maiden speeches across the House. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), for South Ribble (Mr Foster), for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for High Peak (Jon Pearce), for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), for Smethwick (Gurinder Josan), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), for Watford (Matt Turmaine), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and for Blackpool South (Chris Webb). There were excellent speakers all round, but I will leave it to the Minister to pay detailed tribute to Members of his party. A consistent theme was the importance of family, which I strongly agree with. It was slightly surreal to hear my successor in Crewe and Nantwich pay tribute to me, and I thank him for his kind words. Sadly, I am not sure what I got wrong because no one there ever asked me if I had finished school before I asked for their vote. To continue with the rail puns, I am sure that he will be a worthy successor to me in Crewe and Nantwich, rather than just a replacement service. On the Opposition Benches it was helpful to hear from the former Rail Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). She has first-hand experience of the recent changes to our railways, and she explained clearly how this ideological approach is ignoring the reality on the ground, where the franchises should be the focus of the Minister’s attention. She asked where this is leading, and I noted that the Secretary of State referred to the work that the Government will do on the supply chain. Other Members have related their concerns about rolling stock. This is the beginning of the end when it comes to a flourishing rail sector with all sorts of people playing their part. It is clear that we all want to secure better services for passengers alongside value for money for taxpayers. Whatever our differences, we agree on that. The question is how we do it. The catastrophic impact of the covid-19 pandemic has forced a rethink—a necessary and important one. During the pandemic, the previous Government demonstrated clearly their commitment to the railways and to railway staff, providing large amounts of public money to keep the railways running and keep railway staff in their jobs. But that period also hastened the decline of the traditional franchise model as we know it. Passenger journeys plummeted and while there has been a significant recovery travel patterns have changed. That is why we conducted a major review of our railway services and how they operate, and suggested a change of approach as outlined by the shadow Secretary of State during her opening speech. That change of approach, as we heard today, is one the new Government are taking forward in many areas, but what we also heard today is that they are bringing with them not a passenger-first policy, but an ideology-first policy. Their priority is to ban the private sector from operating our main train services. Of all the things they say need doing, and with 14 years of opposition to come up with a list of what needs doing first, they have nationalisation, even though, as the Secretary of State said, it will not make train tickets cheaper or end the strikes. In fact, it is worth reading out the complete non-commitment on rail fares that Labour makes in its plan. It says it wants prices “kept, wherever possible, at a point that works for both passengers and taxpayers”. I can imagine the civil service pen of Sue Gray hovering over that particular sentence. It really is an exemplar of Labour’s modus operandi: using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Reformed ticket prices, reformed working practices and increased reliability—that is what all our constituents want, and the consequence of their rush to implement their ideology is that they brought forward this plan without any evidence for why it will deliver any of that.

• 25 Jul 2024 · Criminal Law · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Member thinks that the Labour Government are now going to have to release 5,000 prisoners they would not want to release, how would he describe the fact that the previous Labour Government had to release 80,000 prisoners they did not want to release?

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) on his maiden speech, in which he spoke about his constituency with passion. Having NHS experience myself, I welcome any Member with frontline experience of our public services, which I am sure he will put to very good use during his time in the House. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on immigration and home affairs, which are two areas that are important to me. I believe that how we tackle illegal migration will be a totemic political issue in the coming decades, not just because of its probable global scale but because it will test whether Governments in the UK and elsewhere are willing to face down often well-meaning but misplaced ideas about how best to protect the rights and welfare of individuals while preserving community cohesion and overall fairness in society. Criminal justice was one of my primary reasons for wanting to come to this place because, despite recent good progress under the previous Government, I feel that our criminal justice system does not do enough to secure justice for the victims of serious crime. At the end of 2023, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the number of people who had been forced to flee their home stood at 117 million. Irregular migration to Europe is rising. According to the European Union’s border agency, Frontex, there was a significant increase in irregular border crossings last year, estimated at approximately 380,000 people, driven, it says, by economic, social and security instability in parts of Africa. Over the last 15 years, Frontex has detected 1.4 million irregular border crossings into the EU. The United States has seen even bigger increases of migrant flows from South America. The question is what to do about it. First, I do not demonise people who make the journey—that is something we should avoid. People naturally want to improve their lives and their family’s lives. For those arriving from conflict zones, their original motivation for leaving was, of course, to protect themselves, but Governments and politicians cannot afford the luxury of blind sympathy for people in difficult circumstances. We have to act rationally. What is sustainable? What are voters in democratic countries, who have to pay to provide refuge for people, willing to accept? I supported the Rwanda plan because I believed it was both fair and rational. Right now, who gets asylum in this country and who the British taxpayers pay to support is determined by the ability of people to make the journey into Europe and the UK. That is not fair. I believe that the agencies that placed people in Rwanda for re-homing were against the plan, because they failed to move with the times in understanding the changing nature of the issue. This is no longer the same problem that the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the refugee agencies were set up to address. The scale of the problem has, and will, continue to grow. There is a fear that if the UK implements such a policy, as Australia did, it will become more and more difficult for anyone to apply successfully for asylum in a western country. I understand that concern, but these agencies and well-meaning human rights advocates need to wake up to what will happen if we do not control these movements of people. We will see a surge in far right support and risk even more unpalatable solutions. Providing safe and legal routes is, by no means, an answer. Whatever safe and legal routes we set up will have criteria and, inevitably, not all people will be able to make it here on that basis. The fit and young will continue to make small boat crossings to overcome that barrier, so we will be right back to where we started. Labour may have some short-term successes, for example on some obvious thing we may not have done when it comes to tackling gangs, but let us look at Labour’s track record. Labour Members opposed all of our measures to increase sentences for people trafficking and the Prime Minister himself opposed the deportation of foreign criminals. That is not an encouraging track record. I wish them luck in the proposals they have put forward, but none represents a sustainable solution. As a number of EU countries have recognised, moving people and offshore processing are the way forward. I pay tribute to the good progress we made on crime and justice in the previous Government. We introduced a whole-life tariff for premediated child murder. We introduced Harper’s law, a mandatory life sentence for the manslaughter of emergency service workers. Importantly, we reformed Labour’s halfway release, bringing it up to two thirds for the most serious offenders. There is no doubt that the pandemic, the associated court backlog and the increase of thousands of prisoners being kept on remand have made other difficult decisions necessary. I take the Justice Secretary at her word when she says these are “temporary” solutions, although if she had sunsetted them she might have had more credibility. However, I send her my goodwill. More generally, there is an intellectual snobbery towards people who think the punishment of offenders is a public good, a positive thing that is necessary for the functioning of our society. In my experience, the Ministry of Justice is happy to focus on the experience of victims but not so much on whether they actually get justice. I will continue to campaign and push this Government, as I did the last Government, to move the whole-life sentence for child murder away from just significant premeditated child murder to all child murder. We will all have been horrified by stories of parents murdering their own children, very often not in premeditated circumstances. I think people like that deserve to face justice with a whole-life order. I will also campaign on the use of life sentences. The term is misleading, often reported as jail for life, when it almost never is, which is an insult to victims. Those are my priorities. I will welcome the new Government’s progress in those areas, but I will be there as a sceptical champion for victims of crime along the way.

• 22 Jul 2024 · Border Security and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  I know the Labour party managed to go an entire election campaign without answering this question, and the Home Secretary failed to answer it again when asked by the shadow Home Secretary, but I will give it one more try. Where does the Home Secretary intend to send failed asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Syria and Iran?

• 18 Jul 2024 · Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Lord Chancellor to her post. I just want to push her slightly on the description of this scheme as a temporary scheme. Whatever she may say, the legislative impact of what the Government are doing will be a permanent change. If she wants to be subject to scrutiny and to have a temporary scheme, there is absolutely no reason why she cannot sunset the legislation to be a genuinely temporary change, and come back later if she thinks she needs to reintroduce it. That is a way to welcome scrutiny and be true to what she says about its being a temporary scheme.