Paul Holmes MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 23 Oct 2024 · Promoting Business and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about growth, but the Mid South West region growth deal, which was paused by this Government, now lies inactive with no direction, and there are reports that much-needed private sector business involvement is now withdrawing. Will the Minister accept that this Government’s handling and pausing of these growth deals was haphazard? Will she apologise to the people affected and enter urgent direct talks with businesses to get this deal back off the ground?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Small Boat Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  Given the Home Secretary’s claim that she would smash the gangs, with £540 million to upgrade the Manston centre, asylum hotels reopening rapidly and 14,000 small boat crossings since she took office, is that the plan that she had for her new border commander? Might it be fair to say that it is not going very well?

• 21 Oct 2024 · St Helena: UK Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the new immigration arrangements between the UK Government and St Helena.

• 21 Oct 2024 · St Helena: UK Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I must say that I am disappointed that, once again, the Government have chosen to make an important announcement outside this House, not within it, as they should. Following on from the Government’s shameful decision to fast-track and capitulate on negotiations to hand over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius, it is clear that the policy announced over the weekend is a rushed consequence of a deal that does not serve British taxpayers well. This aspect of the deal has not been properly scrutinised by this House, and there has been no announcement on how we will scrutinise the wider issue of the transfer of sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to another country. During the treaty negotiations, was this plan discussed? If the Government were so keen on signing away sovereignty, why was it not part of the deal that Mauritius would take responsibility for illegal migrants and take them to Mauritius from day one? Were Chagossians consulted on the plan? The Foreign Secretary said that they were updated throughout, but parliamentary questions have revealed that not to be the case. Finally, how much will the deal cost, and what Department will be responsible? Will there be a drawdown of Treasury funds, or will the money come from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets? Will the cost be added to the overall cost estimated for the sovereignty deal with Mauritius? Does this plan signify a change of heart on the policy of offshoring as a whole? Before Labour MPs stand up to espouse the deal and say how good it is, they should remind themselves that in the election campaign, they wrote in their leaflets that the offshoring of British citizens was immoral. Does this plan represent a change of policy from this Government?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing the debate. I responded to a debate he spoke in earlier this week, and he is typically courteous and cares deeply about his constituency. He will be a really good voice in this House over the next five years, particularly on issues such as this. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West mentioned the large diaspora of Hongkongers in his constituency. He also rightly outlined the challenges in this country’s relationship with China and the many loopholes within the scheme set up by the previous Government. However, I thank him for giving credit to the previous Government for instigating the scheme. The fact that he put the credit in the right place shows that he has excellent judgment, and we look forward to that excellent judgment being shown during his career in this House. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned Jimmy Lai. As His Majesty’s Official Opposition, we absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments welcoming the Prime Minister’s remarks in the House yesterday. We stand with those remarks and look forward to seeing the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister challenge the Chinese in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) was right to mention the previous Government’s commitment to ensuring that we welcomed many Hongkongers, including in my constituency of Hamble Valley. I know that through his activism he will encourage the new Government to challenge the Chinese Government in the meetings that the Foreign Secretary is shortly to hold. I thank Members from all parties for their contributions today, which struck the right tone. I am heartened by the continued support for BNO visa holders who come to this country, where they can rely on the rule of law, developed and protected institutions and a stable democratic system regardless of which party is in charge. Since the introduction of the BNO visa scheme in January 2021, we have witnessed a remarkable response, with more than 210,843 individuals seeking to live, work and study in the UK. This visa route, which is available to those with British national overseas status and their eligible family members, has provided a lifeline for many fleeing the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, a place once known for its vibrant democracy but now facing unprecedented challenges. The number of applicants illustrates the urgent desire of Hongkongers to find safety and stability. However, with that influx comes responsibility. We must ensure that our support systems are prepared to meet the needs of these new residents, enabling them to integrate fully into our society. Although the BNO visa allows holders to work in nearly any capacity and study in the UK, it does not grant access to public funds. That exclusion can create significant challenges for individuals who might find themselves in precarious financial situations on arrival. For example, many BNO visa holders have reported difficulties in securing employment that matches their skills and experience. A survey conducted by the Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers revealed that 40% of respondents felt that their financial health had worsened since arriving in the UK, with rising living costs further complicating their integration. Moreover, although a large majority of respondents—90%—reported having established connections with local communities, language barriers continue to pose a significant hurdle. More than a third of BNO holders rated their English skills as poor, which hinders their ability to find suitable employment and to participate fully in society. The ongoing need for language support underscores the importance of the Hong Kong BNO welcome programme, which aims to assist such individuals as they navigate their new lives. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West was right to raise the case of those with criminal records who were refused under the scheme under the previous Government. Can the Minister outline the line that the new Government will take that? Another pressing issue that has arisen is the difficulty many Hongkongers face in accessing their pension funds, which remain trapped in the Mandatory Provident Fund system in Hong Kong. Under the regulations, those emigrating on the BNO passport cannot access their retirement savings until the age of 65. That situation poses a significant financial burden, especially for those who have relocated permanently and are now struggling to establish their lives in the UK. Reports have surfaced of individuals who, due to their involvement in the pro-democracy protests, left Hong Kong with their life savings inaccessible, jeopardising their financial stability within the United Kingdom. The welcome programme launched in April 2021 represents a crucial step towards successful integration. It includes demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English-language and destitution support, an online welcome pack for newcomers, and a network of welcome hubs across the United Kingdom. Such initiatives are vital in supporting BNO holders to settle into their communities. For the upcoming financial year, I welcome the fact that the Government have announced that £1 million is being targeted on employability and mental health support for BNO visa holders, highlighting the Government’s recognition of the unique challenges faced by this community. As we look to the future, however, it is clear that we need to do more. The new Government have made a commitment to a strategic approach to managing our relationship with China. That must also encompass a firm stance on the rights of those who have chosen to make the UK their home and must include addressing the complex dynamics of our bilateral relationship while standing in solidarity with Hongkongers who have fled oppression. The Government must continue to push for action under the Sino-British agreement of 1984, which is being breached consistently by the Chinese Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon outlined. The Government have acknowledged such challenges, stating that they are working with the Hong Kong authorities to address the barriers preventing BNO visa holders from withdrawing their funds. Not only is the issue of access to funds a bureaucratic hurdle, but it directly impacts on the ability of Hongkongers to secure housing, support their families and build a future within the United Kingdom. In conclusion, let us reaffirm our commitment to supporting Hongkongers in the United Kingdom. We must ensure that our visa routes are not merely a means of entry, but a genuine pathway to integration and opportunity, which I think we can say has happened with the Hong Kong community. That includes providing adequate resources to help individuals adjust to life in the United Kingdom, ensuring access to essential services and advocating for fair treatment regarding their financial assets. It is our duty as a House as well as the duty of the Government and the Opposition to ensure that the promises made to Hongkongers are honoured, reflecting the values of compassion and justice that define our nation.

• 14 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by paying tribute to Figen Murray and the Martyn’s law campaign, to Survivors Against Terror, and to all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims groups that have informed the Bill and helped to get us where we are today. I also thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for the constructive tone that they have taken in debate, and for their offer to work with us to ensure that the Bill completes its stages rapidly. It is a tragic turn of events that a terrible incident is the catalyst for a change in the law, but I hope that the family of Martyn Hett can take some pride in the legacy that Martyn has left. We have heard some very good contributions this evening, and in particular two very good maiden speeches, the first of which was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour). It was lovely to see her family in the Gallery—they were obviously very proud of her—and to hear of a number of local priorities on which she will be working on behalf of her constituents. Although she said that she did not have much in common with the Iron Lady, whose birthday was yesterday, I could tell that there was an iron lady within her, and I look forward to hearing her future contributions in this place. The second maiden speech was made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Mark Harper, who worked hard for the constituency, and told us how hard he would work for his constituents in this place. He challenged a number of Members on whether they could say that a television show had been made about their constituencies, and on which was the most beautiful. Well, I can, because that BBC blockbuster “Howards’ Way” was filmed in Hamble Valley. We are particularly proud of that, and the hon. Gentleman should be rightly proud of his constituency. We have had some other really important contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) spoke as someone representing the locality of the terrorist attack in Manchester—his constituency is in Greater Manchester. He spoke very passionately on behalf of his constituents about the lessons of the inquiry, which were outlined in his speech. I could tell that he cares deeply about his constituency and what happens with this piece of legislation going forward, and I pay tribute to him for his speech. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke about the compassion and kindness of the people of Manchester. When Conservatives go to the Tory party conference in Manchester, we are always welcomed very warmly in the bars and by the people of Manchester, despite expectations. We send them our best wishes going forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) rightly paid tribute to Figen Murray and the charities that helped her and her wider campaign secure a change in the law. My right hon. Friend also mentioned the former Security Minister James Brokenshire, to whom I was briefly Parliamentary Private Secretary and who passed away three years ago. She is absolutely right to outline the early work that he did on this change in the law, and we all very much miss him in this place. We also miss Sir David Amess, who was brutally murdered three years ago tomorrow, and we remember Jo Cox in this House as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) rightly outlined some concerns about the Bill’s shortcomings, particularly around organisations that have seasonal peaks. I will be interested to hear the Minister outline how some of the challenges for smaller businesses with seasonal peaks can be addressed in this legislation. Our great country has come under attack far too often, and all Governments have worked tirelessly to protect the United Kingdom. We believe that that is why we must support the legislation in its aim. I am proud of the work that the previous Government, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, did to bring in Martyn’s law. It is a measure of how much work was done by his family and various organisations that both I and the Minister can stand here today to show that this Bill is needed, and that we can broadly support its measures and aims. Once again, I sincerely congratulate the Government on the fast-tracking of this Bill, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on the way in which she opened the debate. The aim of Martyn’s law is to ensure that premises are better prepared for terrorist attacks, to help protect the public. As I have said, we welcome this Bill, but we need to make sure that we find the right balance between public protection and the requirements placed on businesses and community venues. As noted by Neil Sharpley, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, this law will have an administrative impact on small businesses and there will be an additional cost to them. Michael Kill, the CEO of the Night Time Industry Association, said: “We must ensure that the balance between heightened security and practical implementation is carefully considered.” The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), said that although we are supportive of the Bill, we remain concerned about the level of regulation that will be imposed on the venues included in this legislation. The Government’s impact assessment outlines that 155,000 small businesses with a capacity between 200 and 799 will have average costs of £330 per year, and that larger venues will have average costs of £5,000 per year, so I would like assurances that the Minister is looking at a range of options to mitigate those costs as much as possible. I would also like assurances about the burdensome costs on smaller venues, charitable venues and religious venues that have that level of capacity, as mentioned by both my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham. I want to raise some concerns about clause 4 of the Bill and the “person responsible” element of the legislation. Although I accept that clear lines of accountability are necessary, what important safeguards will be in place for the responsible person in the horrible event that something should tragically go wrong? They could include anonymity, support structures that can be placed around the responsible person, or a line in the Bill stating that the SIA must use its powers and investigatory functions in the most constructive way possible. I want to finish by thanking the Government once again for continuing the important work on the Bill. As I have said, we will work constructively with the Government throughout the passage of this Bill and raise concerns should we have them, as we have done this evening. I welcome the Minister’s approach once again, and praise the family and supporters of Martyn for their work in getting this important legislation on the statute book. As the official Opposition, we look forward to supporting its passage in this place.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  You will find out, Mr Speaker, that I will not test your patience. I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the point he made about the Education Secretary’s tweet, which I thought was disgraceful. [Hon. Members: “Where is she?”] The divisive language behind that tweet was a disgrace, given the many independent schools that work hard and play by the rules. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the embossed notepaper that the Secretary of State focused on is sent to many children who are being sponsored through bursaries or scholarships, and whose parents work hard to give their children the best education? The Education Secretary should apologise for that disgraceful tweet.

• 7 Oct 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  After that performance from the Foreign Secretary, I am delighted to read that there will be reshuffle at Christmas. He should revisit his statement, as he said that my noble Friend Lord Cameron carried on the negotiations—I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he ended the negotiations; this Foreign Secretary capitulated in three weeks. Given the sham negotiation that he has carried out, can he assure me that no military equipment will be allowed to be stationed on not only the outer islands but the inner islands under this agreement over the 99 years? Can he outline to the House—he has not managed to outline much this afternoon—what scrutiny structures and how many votes we will be allowed in this House when he lays the treaty?

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

  More

  indicated assent.

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

  More

  I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and I think that intervention shows the measure of the man that he will be in this House over the next four years. Judging by a debate in which he participated yesterday, I know that he will be a vocal advocate for his constituency, and that he will make Sir David very proud. It is a genuine honour to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). I declare an interest, because I know the hon. Lady very well indeed. We were both on Southampton City Council, as councillors and in leading positions, and we both graduated from Southampton University. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), the Whip on duty who will respond at the end of the debate—I am sure it is coming—should probably close his folder now and leave this out of his notes, but I was actually the best man at the hon. Lady’s wedding. And on my phone I have video evidence of how good she is at dancing, of how bad her husband Ben is at dancing, and of how good a partyer she is at 2 o’clock in the morning. I often call the hon. Lady “Mrs Southampton”, because that is what she is. We both care about Southampton genuinely and passionately. She was a groundbreaking council leader; she cares about her city and she cares about her constituents; and she will be a groundbreaking Member of Parliament. I will just remind her that I secured more votes in Southampton Test than she did when I stood in 2017—but I did lose by 12,500, so she did a lot better than me. As is customary, I wish to raise a few issues on behalf of my constituents. I promise that I will not take too long, because I know that other Members want to make their maiden speeches, and today is a day for them—particularly the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), my constituency neighbour, and my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I am watching him because he is in my flock in the Opposition Whips Office and I will be marking his homework later, and I know that he has two very special people waiting in the Gallery who probably want a cup of tea, so I will keep my speech short. I have always spoken in these debates because I think it important to be able to raise issues on behalf of my constituents—very quickly but also, I hope, very thoroughly. The first issue is one on which I have been campaigning for five years in the House: the Access for All funding that the last Government awarded to a number of stations—including two in my constituency, Hedge End and Swanwick—and the vital importance of ensuring that our train stations are accessible to people who are less able-bodied than we are, and to people with children, particularly those with pushchairs. Following that five-year campaign and two Adjournment debates, we finally received the award, but under the present Government I have been told in a letter that the feasibility study funding is under review. That is a disappointment to me and to my constituents, living in an area where there is excessive development built by the leadership of my local council. As the area grows, it is difficult for my constituents to travel to and from work using Hedge End station; they have to get off the train at Southampton Airport Parkway, 9 miles away. I really hope that the hon. Member for Bridgend will speak to the Department for Transport to ensure that Members on both sides of the House whose local stations have been awarded Access for All funding are given urgent clarification of whether they will receive it, because many people in our constituencies will rely on it. I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to place this under review. Hedge End will not require a massive amount of money. I do not want to hear about a £22 billion black hole; this is not enough money to make a difference to in-year spending. That is the last party-political point that I shall make, but the issue is important in my constituency and many others throughout the United Kingdom. The next issue is broadband and mobile phone signal. A lot of new developments have been built in Whiteley, in my new constituency of Hamble Valley. It has the infrastructure of a number of old, chocolate-box villages that I inherited from the old constituency of Winchester. Many young professionals have bought homes along the Curbridge corridor and down into Burridge, and, in this world of working from home, they want to be able to conduct their business and their work life at home. A number of them receive fines because they cannot pay their bills, and a number are getting into trouble because they cannot turn up to work. I am very interested in hearing from the Government on the investment—maybe not necessarily today, but I hope they can allocate some time to debate the really important issue of digital deserts across the United Kingdom, which is vital. My new constituency is more rural than my old one, and I have picked up this issue across the whole of the constituency since I became its Member of Parliament on 5 July. I want to raise an issue that the Government will hear about from me in a number of debates over the next five years: we need a walk-in centre in Whiteley in my constituency. We have the fantastic Fareham community hospital, which has a great diagnostic team. It opens its doors to the local community and takes some of the pressure off the primary care services that we have in other areas of the constituency, but we need to have more services at the hospital. It is a fantastic site and, with its excellent leadership and staff, has the capability to provide more primary care and more acute care. I hope that the Government will look at allocating funding for walk-in centres at Fareham community hospital and in Whiteley shopping centre. Lastly, people who are watching us from the Gallery or on television—I suspect there are not many—do not see the hard work of the staff of this House. I particularly thank my office staff—they are paid by me, so they should expect to do all the hard work—and the House staff, who are really important. They include the Clerks and the Doorkeepers, who make sure that I get to meetings from time to time and that I know where I am going. New Members will find them particularly useful. I also thank all the catering staff and the people who make our lives here easier. I wish them a wonderful break as we go to argue things out at our party conferences. I hope they get a rest. May I wish all Members from across the whole House, who represent a vast array of different parties, a wonderful recess? Go and have a good argument at various seaside locations across the United Kingdom.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. It is poignant that it is called the Sir David Amess debate. I knew Sir David well, and the last time I saw him was on the day before he died. I was in Qatar with him, in a country that he loved and for which he advocated for many years during his career. When I arrived, he was leaving. I said, “You are leaving, and I am just arriving.” He said, “It’s nothing personal; I have my surgery tomorrow, and I can’t miss it.” He was someone who embodied his constituency, and put his constituency and his constituents first. That is something that is shared by all of us, on both sides of the House, and we remember him particularly today.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Financial Fraud and Economic Crime · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to be able to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition as a newly appointed shadow Home Office Minister, as of this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate and thank him for giving us the chance to discuss the serious issues that he outlined. Also, may I put on the record my commiserations to the constituent he mentioned, whom he saw at his surgery last week, for the serious issues that she has faced? I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for as usual showing his knowledge of yet another subject. Many of us will have been, or know someone who has been, a victim of financial fraud. The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) outlined the various possible targets, from the pensioner who is tricked into giving away their savings by a rogue cold call, to an unsuspecting parent receiving a scam text purportedly from their child asking for money. All ages and sections of society are at risk. As these criminal schemes become more sophisticated, nobody is immune. We have seen that bank accounts can be emptied in minutes and life savings lost. In 2021, victims reported losing £2.35 billion to fraudsters and scammers. We also know from statistics that it is elderly and vulnerable people who are most susceptible to scams and fraud. To the vile criminals who target them, they are seen as a means to enrichment and to profit from their misery. It is our duty to protect them. In an astonishing statistic, Home Office figures indicate that the social and economic cost to the UK from economic crime is £8.4 billion a year. Those costs directly impact the lives and livelihoods of millions of citizens, and further exacerbate social and economic pressures. I look forward to hearing reassurances from the Minister, whom I welcome to his role, on how he will continue to make the progress delivered by the previous Government. We also know, as the hon. Member for York Outer mentioned, that it is not just individuals who are targeted. In a time of increasing global instability, adversaries are constantly probing for weaknesses in our digital financial infrastructure, from cyber-attacks aimed at crippling software, to ransomware attempts to extort money. Our systems are constantly having to update and evolve to keep ahead in a technological arms race. I was interested to hear recommendation 1 in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I would press the Minister to look seriously at that proposal, which would get support from the Opposition, as he outlines his proposals. The previous Government showed leadership in this area. They introduced a reporting mechanism that was bolstered by replacing Action Fraud with a state-of-the-art system for victims to report fraud, while a new national fraud squad, with more than 400 new specialist investigators, made fraud a priority for the police. Will the Minister look seriously at the proposal outlined by the hon. Member for York Outer for a new national fraud centre? That is an interesting proposal and I would like to know whether the Government would look at that, as well as at an anti-fraud tsar who would be a champion in this place, to whom hon. Members can go. I know the Minister is a champion and has many responsibilities. We could never go without another champion in this Parliament. If we take a new approach, we can make a great deal of progress on the 13% reduction in fraud that we saw under the previous Government; indeed we can go further. The need to tackle this growing threat is clear. The economic crime plan, brought forward by the previous Government, for the first time introduced a more effective and joint way of working across various organisations, including law enforcement, supervisory agencies and the private sector, through the landmark Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Stronger tools were put in place to help us fight economic crime. We are all alive to the threats affecting our national security, with our economy being a prime target for rogue forces. The strengthening of our defences by widening our ability to freeze assets and to prevent abuses of our open economy proved to be key after Russia invaded Ukraine, and we must continue to strengthen our economic defence in the wake of rogue foreign entities. Finally, we have seen the new Government make lofty statements about their desire to get tough on fraud, with a new expanded fraud strategy, which I welcome. Given recent policy decisions by the Government, going against promises and commitments in other areas made during the general election, I hope that this is not an area where we will let vulnerable people down. I hope that the Government deliver on those promises. We all agree on the need to tackle this issue. It is to be hoped that this Government are as committed and passionate as the previous one about dealing with this issue, so that we can make progress together. The Minister will have the Opposition’s support in tackling this issue.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is a Minister at the Treasury, so I am hoping he will be able to outline some of the facts and answer my question. He will outline today that the saving made by cutting the winter fuel payment is £1.1 billion. If everybody accepted the means-testing that he is proposing, it would cost £3.3 billion, so can he outline to the House, despite the bluster that he has just made about saving money for the great British people, how it will save money when it will cost more under his proposals?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I will not take any lectures from the hon. Member, but I say to him that I always defend pay rises for people in this country who deserve them, which is exactly what the Conservative Government did. What our Government did not do was award inflation-busting pay rises of 22% to the people who paid for our general election campaign, increasing inflation in this country. I believe that people deserve pay rises, but that should be done within a responsible fiscal envelope. The Labour Government simply have not done that. As we heard from the Chancellor earlier, the measures that she has announced will cost more than the savings generated from scrapping the winter fuel payments—that is a shambles. The Government have done this at a time when energy bills will increase by 10%, despite the Labour party’s promise in Opposition that it would freeze energy bills—another broken promise that pensioners will have to face this Christmas. The Government have also refused to rule out scrapping the 25% single occupancy discount for pensioners and single people. If that goes ahead, they will deprive pensioners of another £600 on average. That is a political choice and a cost of living bombshell that this Labour Government—supposedly the party of hard-working people—will impose on vulnerable and poorer pensioners across the country. Labour Members have a choice this afternoon and going forward. They should reverse the cut, stand up for the thousands of people in their constituencies who will be made poorer by the Government, and reject the measures that they outlined earlier. Let me put it this way: 18,000 people in my constituency rely on the winter fuel payment, as do thousands of Labour Members’ constituents. When we go to the ballot box in four years’ time, I look forward to Labour Members standing up and explaining to those pensioners why they made them poorer.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  The change that the Government announced this morning will mean than 18,300 of my constituents will go without their winter fuel payment this Christmas. In the brief time that I have, I will set out why I believe that is just the start from the Government. The first reason is that cutting winter fuel payments for poorer pensioners is a political choice, not a necessity, despite what the Leader of the House says. Over the election period, Labour said that it would not cut the winter fuel payment. It has broken its promise to the British people, and they will remember that. Labour also said that it would possibly do more, although it has denied that it would not do more. Today’s measures will save £1 billion, as I outlined in my earlier intervention, but Labour has awarded inflation-busting pay rises of £9 billion to its union paymasters.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on the post to which she has been elected. She has just outlined a number of projects for which public money needs to be found. As the shadow Secretary of State outlined, the Government’s decision today will save £1.1 billion, and the replacements they are putting in place will cost £3 billion. How does that make economic sense, and how does it help the case that she is making?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Government Policy on Health · Hansard source

  More

  I know it will be a novelty for the Secretary of State actually to answer a question during this urgent question, but maybe he will do the House a favour by answering this very simple question with a yes or no. He said that no pass was given to Alan Milburn, so will he guarantee that no confidential documents that could have been used for commercial purposes were accessed or left his Department? Will he take responsibility if any documents or data discussed at ministerial meetings with Alan Milburn leave the Department—yes or no?

• 2 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister for Local Government may be aware that Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council is subject to a best value notice, due to its unsustainable £700 million of debt. More audits have been undertaken that show that more borrowing is taking place, so will he meet me to discuss this risk to my constituents and their taxpayers’ money?

• 30 Jul 2024 · Support for Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State and all Ministers to the Front Bench, and I look forward to working with them. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that he is working flat out, as were the last Government, on making sure that the roughly £2 billion of funds generated from the sale of Chelsea football club gets distributed urgently, and reaches those in desperate need of humanitarian assistance due to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine? Does he agree that Chelsea FC is effectively now one of the largest charitable organisations in the country, and that the sooner the funds are mobilised, the better?

• 30 Jul 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source

  More

  Quite frankly, this announcement will be a disaster for my Hamble Valley constituency. Over the last few years, Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh borough council has built double the number of houses required by targets and assessments. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she will take into account retrospective building numbers for areas that have already built more than their fair share? Why is she placing even more pressure on local services in the south-east, where house prices are the most expensive, but leaving cities alone and not increasing house numbers there too?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor spent the election campaign saying that she was going for growth through investing in infrastructure. Instead, she is cutting it, while funding inflation-busting pay deals and scrapping pension benefits for the worst-off. Does she agree that in the battle for the two faces of the Labour party, the face of tax rises, borrowing and boom and bust won, and the British people—hard-working people—will ultimately lose under her leadership?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I raise a significant issue that I am concerned about, in relation to the Chancellor’s statement? [Interruption.] The Chancellor obviously does not want to stay in the Chamber to hear this. In the course of her remarks, the Chancellor appeared to indicate that the Government had knowingly laid wrong or misleading estimates before the House on Thursday last week which differed significantly from what she has presented today, one working day since those estimates were laid. This, if true, is of serious concern. What steps can we take to ensure that the Government retract either the estimates laid or the document that they produced today, and can you tell me whether this possibly constitutes a breach of the ministerial code?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Leader of the House to her position. On the day of the Dissolution of the last Parliament, the previous Government awarded millions of pounds of funding for accessibility at our more remote train stations, including Swanwick and Hedge End in my constituency. Will she confirm that that funding will remain in place, and may we have a debate about accessibility at our more remote train stations?

• 24 Jul 2024 · Barnett Formula · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to their positions, and thank them for their gracious phone call last week to welcome me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) to our positions. On Monday, the Business Secretary slipped out a written statement, rather than coming to this House, revealing that the Government have decided not to proceed with an export development guarantee, or emergency loans that would save Harland and Wolff, despite its unique role and outstanding defence contract. Will the Secretary of State use his position to continue the support that the previous Government gave to Northern Ireland, and make it clear to the Treasury that the people of Northern Ireland expect the Government to intervene in this case, and support Harland and Woolf, as is desperately needed?