Richard Tice MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and I have been calling for British Steel to be a strategic national corporation for some six years. We said to the previous Administration that the last thing they should do is sell it to the Chinese, but they ignored our splendid advice. The industry requires long-term investment. The problem, as we all know, is that it has been beset by short-termism and short-term thinking, as well as by the vast electricity costs in this country, partly caused by net stupid zero and the carbon tariff. There is now a great opportunity for the House to unify. As the Secretary of State confirmed, we have the opportunity to take British Steel into public ownership—this weekend, we would urge, for the sum of £1. We could do a great deal for the taxpayer. We should invest in refurbishing and relining these blast furnaces, in the same way that the French are doing in Dunkirk. They are spending a quarter of a billion euros in Dunkirk, and we should do the same. We should bring in excellent global expertise to help British Steel. There will be opportunities if we do those things and have long-term procurement contracts for raw materials, including the opportunity to use British coal from Cumbria. That is an opportunity that the Government declined, but it would create more jobs and save on transport costs. There is also the opportunity for long-term procurement contracts for British Steel products. Those are opportunities to make British Steel a long-term, viable business for the taxpayer. We can bring in long-term patient capital. If we do those things, we can get everything that we want. Primary steelmaking is a vital strategic asset, and Scunthorpe can be its epicentre. We will support the Government’s Bill today, but there is an opportunity to go further, to be bold and to be courageous. The Secretary of State should show his cajones and show some mettle. This weekend, he and the Government have the opportunity to remove the uncertainty for 3,000 families in Scunthorpe. Let us go for it. Let us nationalise British Steel this weekend and make British steel great again.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  The Transport Secretary omitted to mention that UK car production last year was at its lowest level for 70 years, aside from the pandemic; that UK car production this year is down a further 11%; and that total registrations of electric and hybrid cars this year are down another 2%. Will the Minister agree that the best thing to do to ensure growth and increase production is to scrap all these ridiculous zero emission targets forthwith?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  About 10 days ago, I urged the Minister and the Government to use this decision by the Chinese to close British Steel as an opportunity to take British Steel into public ownership. The situation is urgent. It has stopped ordering the raw materials for the blast furnaces, and unless those raw materials are ordered within about 10 days, those blast furnaces will go cold in mid-May. The Minister says that no options are off the table. Will she confirm that the Government will make those decisions and come to a conclusion about the options within this very short timeframe to ensure that the blast furnaces stay open, and that the right long-term solution is to take British Steel into public ownership and invest in it for British industry, for British Steel and for the workers in Lincolnshire?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is not closed yet.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  We all know that steel, and particularly the ability to make primary steel, is a critical national industry. The Chinese might be giving up on British steel, but the British people do not want to give up on British steel, nor should we allow the final two blast furnaces to close. May I urge the Minister to take this not as a negative, but as an opportunity to be positive? We should take British Steel into public ownership and create a long-term, 20 to 30-year positive plan to invest in steelmaking for British industry and for our defence industry.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents will be concerned by reports in the media this morning about a Government report that shows the cost of net zero will: impact negatively on GDP by 2030 by some 10%, increase national debt, increase the risk of a financial crisis, and hit the poorest the hardest. Given that the report was suppressed from the Department for Business and Trade by the previous Government, and given this Government’s enthusiasm for transparency, will the Leader of the House confirm that the report will now be released to the public to enhance debate on this issue?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Coastal Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member talks about the environmental challenges of our coastal communities, one of which is that many of them face thousands of pylons along hundreds of miles moving electricity from one place to another. Does he agree that we need to find a way to put those cables underground to protect our beautiful coastal communities?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Face-to-face GP Appointments · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes some excellent points. There is clearly a place for telephone appointments. When researching the topic in more detail, I was astonished to find that of the gap between the 64% or 65% of face-to-face appointments and 100%, telephone appointments represent some 25% and Zoom or Teams appointments are just 5% to 7%. I would have thought it would have been the opposite. Surely it is better if GPs can see the pain that might be etched on a patient’s face. We can look at the broader context—at what is happening to our population, and to the number of GPs, and at the pressures on GPs—and ask: is that why the percentage of face-to-face appointments has collapsed so significantly? In England, there are 6.5 million more people than in 2015—an increase of some 17%. Interestingly, the number of GP appointments increased in that period by a similar percentage, give or take; it went from just over 300 million appointments to over 360 million appointments. In fairness, and with due credit, there has been a recent increase, month on month, in GP appointments, which is to be commended, but it seems strange that the number of full-time, fully qualified GPs has barely moved in those 10 years. It is true that there are more trainee doctors and trainee GPs in the system, but the number of fully qualified, full-time-equivalent GPs has basically stayed static. That means, of course, that the number of patients that a GP has on their books has increased significantly, from over 1,900 per GP to over 2,300 per GP. We can therefore understand the increase in pressure on them. Given those health needs, they will feel the need to see as many people as possible, so we can see the temptation to hold telephone or Zoom appointments.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Face-to-face GP Appointments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to hold this Adjournment debate on face-to-face appointments with GPs. I ask hon. Members listening and watching to go back to October 2023 and imagine that they have abdominal pain and some blood loss. They seek a GP appointment and they are given a telephone appointment. They are given a diagnosis of endometriosis and prescribed some painkillers. This diagnosis, sadly, turns out to be incorrect. They then move forward, still in pain, to mid-December 2023. They receive a letter with a gynaecological appointment for the end of January 2024. But they are still in deep pain. The pain intensifies. Their husband rushes them to the urgent treatment centre at Pilgrim hospital, where a doctor sees them and reaffirms the diagnosis of endometriosis. The doctor says, “As you are being looked after by a GP, there’s nothing more I should do.” Over the next two weeks, the pain intensifies, to the point where at the end of December 2023, they are rushed to A&E. It is just before new year. They are told to come back for tests on 2 January 2024. Those tests reveal some problems and some lesions around the liver. They are put on a two-week cancer pathway with more tests, CT scans, MRI scans and an endoscopy. On 2 February, they are given the results of those tests. Sadly, the cancer has spread to such a degree that nothing more can be done. Just three days later, they pass away. It is impossible to imagine or to understand this, but it is the tragic story of Laura Barlow, aged just 33, the mother of three young daughters: Summer Skye, Bonnie Rae and Bella-Mia. Her husband Michael Barlow is here in the Gallery with friends. His campaign, after the tragic loss of his wife Laura, is for more face-to-face appointments, and for patients to have the right to one if they feel they need it. It is worth looking at the context of face-to-face appointments in our healthcare system. Going back some six years to 2019, around 80% of all GP appointments were face to face. According to NHS England, for the last two months, the figure is just over 64%. How do we compare to other nations? In European nations with different healthcare systems, the average is 84% or 85%. We have some 20% fewer face-to-face appointments than some of our international peers. I am just a layman, not a doctor, but it must be common sense that an experienced, highly skilled, professional GP looking a patient in the eye to physically assess them face to face must give patients the greatest chance of a correct diagnosis. Sometimes, a GP will spot something that the patient was not even aware of.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Face-to-face GP Appointments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. This comes back to the basic concept of common sense. It must be easier for a GP to make the correct diagnosis when seeing someone face to face. We all make mistakes, but when our medical professionals on the frontline, whom we all admire, are under pressure and tired, and they make mistakes, that can have devastating, life-changing consequences. We will never know the difference it may have made if Laura had the correct diagnosis in October 2023, but it must be right to give all patients the best opportunity. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who I have interacted with in the Chamber, is absolutely determined to make reforms across the healthcare system. He has started actively, abolishing NHS England, making changes to the Department, and doing much more. That brings me to what else can be done. We can look at the pressures on GPs. I was astonished to read that almost 50% of all GPs are thinking of retiring in the next five years. Almost 50% of them cite the increased pressure of bureaucracy, paperwork and administration. Surely we want our trained GPs in front of patients; we do not want their time being absorbed by unnecessary burdens and paperwork. If that is driving our GPs away from the noble profession of curing and helping people, we have to look again. I hope the Health Secretary, the Minister and colleagues will drive a change in processes. When I was with people in my constituency of Boston and Skegness recently, doing more research, I was astonished by what I found when I spoke to a GP and liaised with her. She gave me some examples of bureaucracy clogging up the system. For example, if a GP refers a patient to a consultant in hospital, and the consultant says, “Yes, the patient needs this, but I also need to refer them to another speciality just down the corridor in the same hospital,” that cannot be done directly. The consultant has to write back to the GP. That letter goes through the post, with a hundred other letters a day. Then the GP has to refer the patient back to a different consultant, with that different speciality, down the corridor in the hospital. That lacks common sense. It appears that if the consultant wants to prescribe medication to the patient who has been referred, they are unable to do that directly; they have to refer back to the GP, who has to spend more time providing the prescription. That appears to lack common sense. If the consultant wants to request blood tests, on many occasions that will have to be referred back to the GP, by letter or maybe by email, so that the GP can request those tests. All that leads not only to delay for the patient, and to time being consumed, but to more work for the GP, who we all surely want to see more patients face to face. There are other situations that seem to be clogging up the system. Take our old friend GDPR. It is well-intentioned, but when I went to a pharmacy in Boston a few weeks back, the pharmacist said, “We have the same software system as the GP surgery, right next door to us in the same building, but because we have different modules, and because GDPR does not let the modules talk to each other, it leads to increased delays and a lack of productivity and, for patients, a lower-quality service.” They went on: “We could do so much more. We could relieve the GPs of some of the work they are doing, so that they could see the patient face to face.” Then, a week later, I was in a care home in Boston, with carers and experts in the room. We were talking through the issues. They said, “There are processes and procedures that we can do that we are not allowed to do, so a GP has to do it; or we have to request an ambulance from the hospital, clogging up ambulance waiting lists or clogging up A&E corridors, when we could do those procedures.” Again, the great concept of common sense cannot be applied. I think we all know that we can do so much better than that. Then there is the issue of referrals. When a GP makes a referral to a consultant, that referral often gets assessed by a non-clinician as to whether it is correct. I would have thought that we should be able to trust highly trained, highly skilled professional GPs and back their judgment on the frontline. If they think someone needs to be referred to a consultant, surely that does not need double or triple-checking. Again, that delays good patient care and causes more blockages for the GP, more admin and more paperwork. Then there are our friends at the Care Quality Commission: an important supervisory process and concept. I hear about the processes, the box-ticking, the patient panels—all that is just more admin, more time and more resources consumed outside the core function of face-to-face treatment and care for patients. It therefore seems that this is not a party political issue, but one of driving continuous improvement in our healthcare system, and of the Department, as it moves forward with the reforms we all want to see, saying, “Actually, let’s look at all the processes. How do we reduce the blockages? How do we remove any unnecessary paperwork and burdens? How do we improve the technology?” Indeed, artificial intelligence, which is so recent, is a huge opportunity for healthcare and technology in healthcare, and for GPs to, for example, double-check or triple-check their own diagnoses. These are great opportunities facing us, but most fundamental of all, we must give our GPs every support, every ease of progress and the right technological assistance behind the scenes in the back office, so they can face all of us when we are unwell and need treatment, because that is when they can use their experience, wisdom and knowledge to get to the right diagnosis. It would be a tribute to Laura—it would be her legacy—for patients to have the right to see a GP face to face. Easing the processes would make life easier for GPs and would make them want to stay in the profession, because they know that face to face they will achieve a great and noble cause and good.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister speaks about facts. Is he aware of the fact that when the Labour party won the election, the economy was growing, and is he aware of the fact that it is now shrinking?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Energy Consumer Support · Hansard source

  More

  The price of gas is some 20% lower than it was at the beginning of this year, and the Secretary of State promised that bills would come down. Can the Government say when bills will come down for consumers, given that they are going up by 6% on 1 April?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Sentencing Council understand that, with these guidelines, it is totally out of touch with the mood of the British people, totally out of touch with the mood of the Government, and totally out of touch with the mood of the House? And therefore, why will it not agree to delay these guidelines until they have been properly debated in this House?

• 17 Mar 2025 · G7 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It seems to me that Putin views the failure to seize the frozen assets as a sign of western weakness. If there are some reluctant countries, given that the Prime Minister is rightly leading a coalition of the willing, would he and the Government lead a coalition of the willing nations who will seize those frozen assets?

• 13 Mar 2025 · NHS England Update · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Secretary of State on the changes announced today to cut unnecessary waste and bureaucracy. We all know and agree that healthcare should remain free at the point of delivery and, of course, that the NHS needs reform. Just last Saturday, I was in a care home in Boston with a lady—an expert—who knows Melanie Weatherley, and she was telling me about the unnecessary processes within NHS England on the frontline that constrain good care in care homes, impose unnecessary constraints on ambulances and block A&E wards. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the changes and reforms will include unnecessary processes on the frontline in care homes?

• 11 Mar 2025 · North Sea Vessel Collision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. We congratulate everyone involved. It is worth remembering the voluntary nature of so many of the emergency services and the RNLI. The volunteers from the RNLI Skegness rushed out of their homes and businesses to man the lifeboat, which was away for almost 11 hours, putting themselves in harm’s way with extraordinary bravery. We should never forget that.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State confirm how many SEND children are forecast to have to leave the independent sector and go into the state sector because of the imposition of VAT on fees? What will be the cost of that to the taxpayer?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. We all want to do things well—I am sure that is an ambition shared by all hon. Members—and immigration done well can be a great thing. It is what I call smart immigration, where we welcome people from across the world, with the skills required, in numbers that can be absorbed into the existing population. We welcome people who want to integrate, work and grow within communities, and learn the language. That is a great thing, and we have a long history, until the last 25 years, of actually getting that right. When we are looking at strategy and planning our constituents expect us to do a good job, so when we look ahead to the next 20 years and see that population growth of some 10 million people is forecast—give or take; let us call it half a million a year—and the vast majority of that is through inward migration, we want to say, surely, “How will we plan for that? Where is the infrastructure? Where are the homes, doctors, hospitals and everything else?” In a sense, the challenge that the Government currently face—there are many, which we all recognise—is dealing with the existing challenges. I suspect that there is very little real planning. The Government are planning to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, but that will barely alleviate the existing population’s housing challenges, let alone half a million more people coming to join our population every year over the next five years and beyond. I fear that for the next 20 years we are going to make the same mistake as the huge one we made 20 years ago. If we had had this sort of debate in about 2005 and someone had said, “We’ve got a good idea, folks: let’s increase the population by 10 million people over the next 20 years”— give or take, about 17% of the then population—I am pretty sure that smart hon. Members would have said, “If so, we have to build the infrastructure, the houses and so on.” Someone would probably have asked, rightly, “Will that make us all better off?” The role of the Government in this great place is to make our constituents better off. If something is planned for and delivered well, great results can be achieved. But if there is no proper planning, as happened, regrettably, under the previous Conservative Administrations—various shades of Liberal Democrat—uncontrolled migration and the situation of the last couple of years are the result. In one year, there was almost 1 million net inward migration and in a second year almost three quarters of a million. That is completely uncontrollable, and it puts huge pressures on the population. The thing to focus on to bring people together in this sensitive debate is population. If we want population growth, we must plan for it, make sure that it is going to make everybody better off and then deliver it. The interesting point, of course, is that our population has never been bigger; according to official numbers, it is a whisker under 70 million people. We are not short of people in this country. There are, give or take, 7 million or 8 million people who are economically inactive and over 5 million people on out-of-work benefits. Surely, before we say, “We need another half a million people a year, every year, to provide the labour for the various services we need to fill”, we should be training and skilling up our own people.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I think the fact was that the Government were assessing people quickly and promptly. I suspect that what we did not have back then—I may be wrong, and if so, I stand corrected—is a huge industry of lawfare that had grown up, as it has now, but I could be wrong on that. I think it comes back to the issue of competence. Having been stopped from coming illegally primarily in lorries, people are now coming on boats. What the previous Government utterly failed to do, having had no strategy whatsoever, was stop the boats. There is a history of other nations stopping the boats, and the tragedy, as a previous speaker said, is that by not stopping the boats, people are dying. Last year was a record year—I think the figure of 69, give or take, was mentioned. The current policy is the worst of all worlds. It is my opinion, having studied it and read it in great detail, that the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea gives us the legal right to pick people up out of boats and safely take them back to France. Under that same treaty there is a legal obligation on our good friends the French to do exactly that. They have a legal obligation that they are failing to fulfil. We know that it works because the Belgian authorities pick up boats that try to leave its shores. They take them back and the whole thing is stopped very quickly. What that requires is competence and political courage, which we have not seen anything of in the last six years by either Government. The Government have a strategy at the moment, and I hope that the Minister will address it in his remarks, which is to smash the gangs and pray that that will stop the boats. But the evidence so far—some seven or eight months into this Administration—shows that the numbers are some 20% higher than in the comparable period. We know that last year some 36,000 people came across on the boats. This is costing the country billions and billions of pounds. It is quite hard to get a sense of how many billion, because it is being spent in so many different ways, but it is costing the country billions of pounds. It has also led to the destruction of thousands and thousands of jobs in hotels across the country in the hospitality sector. It has also put significant extra pressure on housing: some 150,000 have come across on boats; very few have been returned. There was that successful return of four people to Rwanda at the cost of many hundreds of millions of pounds. The question for the Minister is: how long will the Government carry on with this policy of smashing the gangs before accepting that it is not working and that it will not work? That is a very important question that I have previously asked the Secretary of State, and we are still waiting for an answer.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member makes a splendid economic point, which I was coming on to, because this is basic economics. If we have a labour shortage, employers have one of two choices. They can either say, “I need to pay higher wages”, which reflects what the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) was indicating earlier. Or, if they cannot afford that labour, they will essentially be saying, “I need to invest in capital equipment, which is more productive”, and that is what happened: in the ’80s and ’90s, businesses were investing in capital equipment. That is why we became ever more productive and why we got richer. That is the key thing. From a legal migration standpoint, if we implement it well, with the highly skilled and highly trained going to where they will contribute to various sectors, it is a good thing and hugely welcomed across the country. That takes us back to where I think things were some 25 to 35 years ago. Done badly—like anything in life—we end up with problems. That is why we have ended up in the situation we are in: because of the failures of the previous regime. That is the issue of legal migration. With competence of delivery, it should be sortable, but the British people are very anxious about the pressures on housing and public services, and that is driven by the pressures of population growth. The challenge for this Government is to try to deal not only with the huge problems that they inherited, but with the potential population growth. In a sense, if the Government said, “Well, we can’t cope with population growth, because we need to deal with the current challenges”, that might make life easier for them. Otherwise, the Government will be constantly chasing their tail and might never catch up. That brings me to the issue of illegal migration. I would have thought that we could all agree that if something is illegal, we should stop it. In many ways, that goes back to what I was saying earlier about having to do something well: one has got to be competent, and occasionally it requires a bit of courage. Interestingly—credit where credit is due—under the Labour Administration in the 2000s, we had significant numbers seeking asylum and we had significant illegal immigration, which was then not on boats but in lorries and vans and such, and the Government were doing a good job. They were catching people and saying, “Thank you very much for your application, but you are an economic migrant and have come here illegally. We are going to thank you but say no, you can’t stay.” The Government were removing some 40,000 people a year and were assessing asylum applications in two to three weeks, with a couple of weeks for an appeal. The decision was made and either the person stayed or returned. In 2004, I think, the acceptance rate for asylum seekers was about 18% to 20%. That percentage is now somewhere in the 70s. We have a history of being able to do things well. I think that is what the British people want.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  The point is that life expectancy has grown and the pension age is growing because we are healthier. That is a great thing. People enjoy work—work is a great thing. However, the real point is that there are some 5 million-plus people not of retirement age who we need to get back into the workplace. We want a world-leading benefit system that looks after the genuinely vulnerable and sick as well as the genuinely unemployed who are looking for work. I would have thought that we could all agree on that. Let us look at what really did work well: back in the ’80s and early ’90s, net inward migration was about 30,000 to 50,000 a year on average—in some years, there was a little bit of net emigration. It was working well. People came to work and integrated—and guess what? Our economy was growing at 2.5% to 3.5% a year. Everybody was getting better off. We had real per-person wage growth, above the rate of inflation, of some 2.5% per annum in the 1990s. We now have no GDP growth but significant population growth through inward migration, so we are all getting poorer per person. That is one of the challenges that we all face. If we know that the system worked back then, maybe we should be willing to learn the lessons of history. That was a time when there was no immigration debate, interestingly. Until about the early 2000s, immigration was not an issue because it was working well, with numbers that could be sensibly absorbed. People were getting richer—and that is a good thing. My view is that we are not short of people, and the anxiety of those who signed the petition is that population growth is too great. We cannot cope with our existing population, and there is a need for pause—perhaps a policy of net zero immigration: one in, one out. About 400,000 people leave the UK every year; we could welcome a similar number in—that will ebb and flow—as long as they are highly skilled and highly qualified where we have shortages, while we train our own people. Back in the ’80s, the interesting thing was that our healthcare system, the NHS, was working very well—

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I urge the right hon. Member to enjoy the pleasures of taking a bus to Clapham—it is a splendid experience.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  It was working well, and we had people coming from around the world to help the NHS—but we were training our own, and that was a great thing. That comes back to the point that what has happened in the past 15 years is the complete failure to deliver for population growth at every level. The madness of the cap on training our own people who want to be nurses or doctors—it is absolutely ludicrous. We encouraged businesses in that by saying, “You do not need to invest in training. You can just bring in people from overseas.” What happened? That brought in low-skilled, lower-cost labour from overseas, and we were told by the authorities, the ONS and the Office for Budget Responsibility or its predecessors, that that would be a good thing for the country. Now, we have been told by the OBR, which has just caught up with things, that lower-skilled and lower-cost labour never contributes financially to the economy more than it takes out.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think the real number is many billions higher. Of course, the cost could be £10 billion a year—that is almost 10 times the winter fuel allowance, just to put it in perspective. There is another issue here: the degree of illegal working going on in this country is completely off the scale. It is often unreported on. For example, 40% to 50% of all fast food deliveries, give or take, are now being done by people on sub-accounts. They rent the accounts from the original account holder, who they find on Facebook, at a cost of £50 or £60 a week. Why would someone pay someone else for a sub-account on a delivery company website if they were able to get an account for free? There can be only one reason: those people are working illegally. If any Members enjoy the pleasures of fast food deliveries, I suggest they look at the person delivering their food and compare them with the picture of the person who was supposed to deliver it. Very often, they will see that it is not the same person. The scale of illegal working has the sad effect, which I have seen and spoken to people in certain towns about, of suppressing the wages of genuine British workers who want to earn a good living, and were earning a good living, by delivering fast food on bikes, e-bikes or whatever. Again, there is a serious lack of fairness; it is completely unjust. There is a strange thing going on, and it is happening in my constituency of Boston and Skegness and elsewhere. I am talking about illegal legal migration. It is a racket and massive business. People are coming here on a visitor visa and when they arrive here, they go to a high street shop—they do this in Boston—where they get told how to fiddle the numbers on the form to show that they were here pre 2020. By doing so, they can subscribe under the EU settlement scheme, even though they have never been here before. That gives them a national insurance number for overseas, which entitles them to work, and soon after that it entitles them to claim benefits. We have ended up with a level of illegality up and down the country much greater than anybody dare talk about. I hope everybody agrees that it is incumbent on this Government to ensure competence in enforcement, because that will stop this level of abuse. It is suppressing the wages of British people, and it is adding huge pressure on housing demand, when there is a critical housing shortage. [Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair ] I welcome you to the Chair, Dame Siobhain; it is lovely to see you. We have to get on top of the illegality, while recognising that legal migration done well is a very smart thing to do. Done badly, as it has been in recent years, it has led to the massive challenges and the concerns that tens of millions of people across the UK have. In summary, I think this is about doing things well. It is about stopping illegal migration by doing the job properly, and being smart about how we motivate our existing population and getting people skilled up and back into work, so that we do not need to rely on large amounts of inward migration when we are paying huge amounts of money for people to stay at home. That cannot be smart, good government. I think any Government, if they do this well, will have the gratitude of the British people. I think the British people just want someone to do this job properly.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman said that it is up to a sovereign nation to look after its own borders and determine its own checks. Does he accept that there has been trade diversion within the United Kingdom? If so, does he accept that it is within the Government’s remit to use article 16 or drop the checks to protect trade within our sovereign borders?