Priti Patel MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Nov 2024 · Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the decision taken by the International Criminal Court’s pre-trial chamber I to issue arrest warrants in respect of the Israel-Gaza conflict.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants · Hansard source

  More

  The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for the state of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant will do nothing to help secure the release of those poor hostages, who have been held captive by Hamas for more than a year. It will not help to get more aid into Gaza, and it will not deliver a sustainable end to this awful conflict. In charging Israeli leaders alongside Hamas, the ICC appears to be drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s war of self-defence and Hamas terrorism. We utterly reject any moral equivalence. The only beneficiaries of this decision are Hamas and their terrorist sponsors, Iran, who are now celebrating this propaganda coup as a great victory for Hamas and Hezbollah. Since the ICC’s decision, we have had dither from Ministers, confused messaging and no clarity, so I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks today. The Government have indicated already that they will seek to enforce these warrants through our own courts, and there is a process around that. On the issue of warrants, we have expressed serious concerns over process, jurisdiction and the position on the complementarity principle. We believe that the warrants for Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant have no basis in international law. Do the Government believe that the Court has jurisdiction in this case, given that Israel is not party to the Rome statute and Palestine is not a recognised state? Does the Minister agree that the ICC must act within legal norms? In the absence of the ICC making public the specific context of the charges, does the Minister share the concerns expressed about reports of process errors in the ICC’s investigation and the concerns expressed by Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, about the use by the prosecutor of an expert panel? Finally, but crucially, what effect does the Minister believe that Mr Netanyahu’s immunity under international law as a serving Prime Minister of a country that is not a state party has on enforcing these warrants in the UK’s own courts? These are important questions on which I look forward to the Minister’s response. He has already spoken about securing the release of hostages and more aid coming into Gaza, but at this time when such a conflict is taking place, it is important that we have clarity from the Government.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  The jailing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong under the draconian national security law is appalling. It is a serious blow to freedoms in Hong Kong. The harsh application of this disturbing law to suppress people in Hong Kong cannot go unanswered. In government, my party consistently championed for that law to be repealed, and we gave safe routes for British nationals overseas in need of protection. I am proud to have established that scheme as the then Home Secretary. We also published reports twice a year on the situation in Hong Kong to raise our grave concerns about the erosion of freedoms with the Chinese authorities and at the United Nations. Yesterday, the Prime Minister met President Xi and said he wanted a respectful relationship where both countries tried to avoid surprises. He even confirmed that he had called in the application for the new Chinese embassy. But less than 24 hours later, the Sino-British declaration has been trampled on yet again, with the sentencing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners. Where does that leave the Government’s reset with Beijing? Did the Prime Minister actually secure any commitments on Hong Kong yesterday? Will the Prime Minister now be holding further conversations with President Xi to convey his concerns about this appalling jailing? Why did the Minister for the Indo-Pacific this morning not call, in her statement, for the repeal of the national security law? The official No. 10 read-out of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi failed to mention Jimmy Lai’s case. We understand the Prime Minister did raise concerns, but that is not enough. Did he call for Jimmy Lai to be released and for an end to his politically motivated trial? A yes or no answer is needed, because there is an important distinction between the two. The UK has an historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong. We must stand up for their rights under the international covenant on civil and political rights and basic law. The Government must provide the mettle needed to handle the relationship with China, to stand up for the freedoms and democracy of Hong Kong, and to raise their game.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the jailing of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Ukraine: 1,000 Days · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and, importantly, to the Government for making time to acknowledge and mark this tragic and terrible anniversary. Like so many in this House, I remember the early morning of that dark day in February 2022, 1,000 days ago. As Home Secretary at the time, I recall the early-morning call notifying me of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It was a day we had all feared, having seen Russian troops gathering close to the border for several weeks beforehand, and indeed over the previous decade, since the invasion of Crimea and Russia’s support for the separatists in Donbas. The sovereign territory of a European nation has been violated, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we have all watched the horrors unfold over the last 1,000 days. In those early days, we saw the Russian military machine advance deep into Ukrainian territory. I pay tribute to the heroism, courage and bravery of the Ukrainian armed forces and the Ukrainian people, who have proudly defended their sovereign territory. Let us be in no doubt that Putin expected Ukraine to capitulate and for its Government to fall. He thought he could bully his way into Ukraine’s territory. Instead, President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have bravely stood tall. They have fought on, and they are fighting every day. The cost to Russia has been catastrophic. Ukrainians are not just fighting for their country; they are fighting for our shared values of freedom, democracy, sovereignty and fundamental rights. We should be proud that ever since Russian troops crossed the border, and before, this Parliament has stood shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Mr Speaker, you will recall that, in 2022, the entire machinery of government mobilised to support Ukraine. To this day, that cross-party support has been pivotal. We created safer routes to enable 20,000-plus Ukrainians to come to our country, and the Ministry of Defence, under Ben Wallace, was one of the first to supply weapons and key capabilities. We trained Ukrainian troops in this country, and we signed the security co-operation agreement that the Foreign Secretary mentioned. We announced a multibillion-pound funding package, too. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, flew the flag for Ukraine across the world, making the case, imposing sanctions on Russia, persuading others and fighting the cause of freedom. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in every single effort. The commitment has been solid as we have worked unstintingly with all our partners. I saw the devastation when I met Ukrainians on the Polish border who were fleeing the conflict, and I know that many Members have visited Ukraine and met families over the last 1,000 days. We have all been touched by the personal horror stories of loss and grief from people, including children, whose lives have been shattered. Our thoughts are with them. It is a sobering and stark reminder that, although the modern world has delivered so much progress for humankind, unreconstructed tyrants are inflicting misery beyond comprehension with their contempt for human dignity, democracy and the rule of law. We saw that so clearly over the weekend, with the devastating waves of attacks unleashed by Putin. I have a few questions for the Foreign Secretary. Will he confirm that we will continue to provide all the resources we can from our own stocks, and that we will work with our NATO allies to ensure that equivalent equipment is available for Ukraine if we do not progress with specific capabilities ourselves? NATO countries, as we know, are able to leverage a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a combined defence inventory many times larger than the Kremlin’s, so Russia’s victory in this war is not inevitable. The Defence Secretary is sitting on the Front Bench, and he will have views on this, but I would welcome an indication on what steps the Government will take to replenish our stocks. Does the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Government, agree that this shows why it is important that we have a clear pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030? Beyond the provision of lethal aid and capability, can he give an update on his diplomatic activity to further isolate Russia and to address the influx of North Korean troops? We welcome this week’s announcement on sanctioning Iran for supporting the Russian war effort, and we must pursue those sanctions with vigour. We seek assurances that the Government will continue to review the measures on people and entities within the scope of sanctions, so that we can do more to prosecute Russia’s role in this conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary outline the approach that will be taken to engage with the new US Administration more widely, with our allies, to back Ukraine? It is vital that this House stands united. As we mark 1,000 days of this war, we must ensure we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on the side of freedom. Slava Ukraini!

• 13 Nov 2024 · Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. The world is a more dangerous place than ever before in our lifetimes and this Government have agreed to give away a key strategic asset in the Indian ocean, ending more than 200 years of British sovereignty. It is the wrong decision, and we stand by that completely. A month has gone since the Government’s announcement, but we are still in the dark about exactly what they have agreed. That is simply not acceptable. We have no treaty and vital questions remain unanswered. That is unacceptable and the Minister needs to put it right today. We cannot afford for our military base on Diego Garcia to be compromised in this way. What safeguards will be in place to ensure that no other states can establish themselves or place their assets, in particular strategic assets, on any nearby islands in the archipelago? How does the decision affect the strategic defence review that is under way? How much money will Labour be asking British taxpayers to send to Mauritius each year under the deal, which we do not even know the details of? Which departmental budgets will that come from? What is the total figure? The House expects transparency, including on what taxpayers will be funding. We need to hold the Government to account on this. Will the Minister please give a cast-iron guarantee that the UK will be able to unilaterally extend the agreement on the military base beyond 99 years? That is all we have heard for now. What will be the mechanism for doing that? This is a crucial piece of scrutiny that we all need to know about, particularly as the Minister raised a point about national security and the national security apparatus agreeing to this arrangement. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary—I know he is not here today—personally undertaken with the Chagossian community, who the Minister will know are beyond distraught about the agreement? The elections in Mauritius and the United States pose further questions, and it is right that we follow up on them. Labour rushed into the deal just before the Mauritian elections, even though Ministers must surely have realised that a change of Government was a strong possibility. Why did they do that? The Minister needs to be clear. We want to know how the Government are going to engage with the new US Administration. The Opposition oppose the Government’s decision and we intend to hold them to account.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I echo the Minister’s words about the Committee, the long-standing support for this Bill and the work that took place, including before I arrived in post. As was set out on Second Reading, not only do the Opposition support the Bill, but it is important to recognise the work of the CPA and the ICRC. I have had the great privilege of working with the ICRC in, I am afraid, harrowing times of conflict, instability and great humanitarian crisis around the world, and we should all support the bravery that their workers show, as well as their dedication to being a force for good. The CPA’s work is central to realising the Commonwealth charter’s commitment to “the development of free and democratic societies”, as well as capacity building. It is vital that we continue to nurture and support that, because democratic legislatures around the world are pivotal to the security that we all want to see. The ICRC has a unique legitimacy to engage parties to conflict and access vulnerable people in conflict zones, and that is why is the Bill is so important. No one and no country should ever take that for granted, particularly given some of the hostilities and fragility across the world. In the light of our long-standing commitment to the Bill, my remarks will be brief. It is clear that the legal changes in the Bill are absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the CPA and the ICRC. Specifically on the CPA, we support clause 1 and the concept of effectively treating the CPA as an international organisation—it feels almost perverse that it has taken this long to get to that stage. We want the CPA to be able to fully participate across a range of areas in which it currently faces restrictions. The Bill provides a clean legal solution with regard to its key international functions, so it is right to make these changes. The Bill’s proposal that its legal capacities become almost corporate functions is highly sensible. Again, on the privileges and immunities that the Minister has outlined in the schedule, and the conditions of application, the approach is proportionate in relation to the function of the CPA and the ICRC. We recognise the necessity of clause 3. Among other things, it will assist the courts, and the Minister and I are pretty familiar with some of the issues relating to the status of a person who might have been granted privileges and immunities. It would be useful if the Minister set out the steps he will take once the Bill passes, so that we lean in and advance what is being done to support the work of the CPA. I refer to the support for both the UK delegation and the CPA’s wider work. The Minister mentioned CHOGM. There was a communiqué about democratic institution building, as well as election observation and support, that stated: “Heads requested the Commonwealth Secretariat to develop a plan for the whole-of-election-cycle approach and to ensure that there is sustainable financing for this work.” What role does the Minister think the CPA will have in that, and what kind of contribution does he see it making?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for articulating the whole premise of an Order in Council, which is a long-standing procedure. There is not much for me to add on clause 4, because that is procedural. We know the merits of the Order in Council and the technicalities through which it will support various provisions. Clause 5 is technical and we do not object to it. I also support clause 6 and the removal of the insertion from the other place, which no one really understands. Before I conclude, I thank everyone who has been involved in the development of the Bill, including former and current members of the CPA. Many long-standing figures have played an important role in shaping the CPA, its work around the world and the Bill. Importantly, the House should recognise the natural nurturing and important strengthening of institutions across the Commonwealth. We all have an interest in that, and it is crucial to continue that. Finally, I thank the 18,000 staff of the ICRC around the world. I have worked with them and served alongside them in many capacities in the past, and this Bill will absolutely do what is required to give them not just the resources, but the footing that they need to deliver, as set out in the Bill. Question put and agreed to . Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 6 Extent, commencement and short title Amendment made: 1, in clause 6, page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (4). — (Stephen Doughty.) This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule agreed to .

• 13 Nov 2024 · Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he outlined the detail of clause 2. First, we recognise the benefits of conferring the legal capabilities of a body corporate on the ICRC, which includes contracts and the acquiring and disposing of property and legal proceedings. That is vital. Regarding legal disclosure requirements, it is right that sensitive information that the ICRC shares with the Government is protected. The Minister has succinctly outlined the reasons for that, and I completely endorse and support them. We do not want the ICRC to be restricted in the level of information that it shares. We are contributors to the international aid budget and great supporters of the ICRC. Whether it is assessments or understanding the resources that are needed, all of this helps with the analytics, which helps the UK Government to step up in times of crisis and provide the resources that are needed. We should not do anything that would weaken our ability to work in a constructive way, particularly at times of crisis. It would be very helpful if the Minister shared his thoughts on the use of these provisions in driving forward our relationship with the ICRC., because it is about results. The Minister will know from my previous incarnations my focus on delivery of results, which is even more important in times of humanitarian crisis. It would be helpful if he said where he has made assessments of areas in which we could do more together to drive outcomes. It might not be appropriate now to give the illustrations but, in due course, we should work together on this, because it should go beyond money. The Minister made an important point about ensuring that the legal capabilities and proceedings work in the right way for the ICRC, but do not cross over into criminal proceedings. The Minister will recognise my point on this. I am afraid that there have been appalling situations within the development sector, where we have seen, fortunately, whistleblowers disclose harrowing information—sexual abuse, violence, people abusing their positions—but not enough done within the development community to deal with it. I am heartened by the Minister’s assurances and, in due course, I believe that the British Government can step up in this area and become the leaders that we should be, to show that we have no truck with the wrong kinds of behaviours. Not only that, we can work with organisations such as the ICRC to use criminal proceedings in the right way to show that we will not tolerate wrongdoing. My final comment is on a Treasury matter. We recently had the Budget, and the ICRC and other organisations, including the CPA, will be subject to replenishments at some stage. This is not a subject for detailed discussion now, but would the Minister indicate, in light of this Bill, the provisions and the support we are giving to the ICRC, where he sees the future funding pathway giving the ICRC the resources it needs to carry on being the strong, successful force for good in the world that we all want it to be.

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

  More

  Does the Minister recognise that the changes not only break the Government’s previous promises on APR to farmers, but that they will add significant burdens and costs to family farms and disincentivise food production?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Essex Highways Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered funding for highways in Essex. I am delighted to be granted this debate and pleased to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I welcome the Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), to her role. She and I have already been in correspondence about a range of highways issues—there will be a big file on me in her Department, no doubt about it. I look forward to not just this debate but future ones, because Essex is always at the forefront of making the case for infrastructure investment schemes. It is important for the Minister to be aware of the strategic and economic importance of the great county of Essex. It is a county of entrepreneurs and an engine of economic growth for the whole country. I have made the point consistently for 14 years in this House that we are net contributors to the Treasury. We have a gross value added of more than £40 billion and 75,000 businesses supporting more than 700,000 jobs. We have key ports and airports in Essex, and I have spent near enough over a decade supporting them, being an advocate for them and helping them on business cases, including for inward investment. I am very proud of that work, and we as a county and a country should be grateful to the many firms involved for the investment that they bring. As the Minister will be aware, Stansted airport is the third or fourth largest and busiest passenger airport in the country, with around 28 million passengers a year. It is also the second largest cargo airport and I pay tribute to it. The Minister will no doubt have seen the Government’s press release about the £1.1 billion investment to support the expansion of Stansted to accommodate around 43 million passengers a year. I appreciate that there was that press release on Monday, but I have been working with Stansted on its plans: the scale of the investment was actually announced and widely published last year, when the planning process was completed. I also supported Stansted on that. I look forward to the implementation of the plans. They are really important, and Stansted is an incredible airport. I have been supporting and championing investment in and new routes for Stansted since 2010. We also have Southend airport and various ports, supporting and facilitating international trade: Harwich, Tilbury and DP World London Gateway. I have spent over a decade working with friends and colleagues at DP World. I will continue to support them; my relationship with them goes way back in terms of supporting their business and investment case. As with Stansted, we had the announcement this week from DP World, much of which was already in train. How can I put this politely? I am very conscious of the sensitivities of some Secretaries of State, namely the Transport Secretary and the deputy Prime Minister, that led at the end of last week to some of the more negative responses from businesses such as DP World. Those businesses are important investors in the United Kingdom and we should never undermine them. They are the ones that have brought capital investment, as well as jobs and growth, to our great county and our country. Of course, the reason why those companies locate to Essex is its close proximity to London and everything else that that brings. We have Felixstowe to the north, in Suffolk, and of course Dover in Kent. All these ports are significant to the health and economic wellbeing of the whole United Kingdom, as well as London and the south-east. The containerised goods that they bring in are moved through our region, the east of England, and through Essex in particular. We are a buoyant hub for international trade. Consequently, businesses and investors know that, because of our favourable strategic location, Essex is a place to do business. However, for significant economic growth, new investment and further job creation— I never tire of speaking about Essex and the economic dynamics of our county—the strategic road network must be supported. I want to touch on a few particular schemes. One of the most pressing road investment schemes is the widening of the A12 between junction 19 at the Boreham interchange and junction 25 at Marks Tey. I have no doubt that the Minister has been briefed extensively about the background to the scheme, but it has a long history. I know that this is only a short debate, so I will just summarise that history. Back in 2014, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a commitment to fund the widening of the A12 scheme to improve safety and, importantly, to reduce congestion, to enhance our region’s economic growth and capability. The scheme was well under way and being developed. As part of their local plan processes, local planning authorities were considering a garden community. That had an impact on the entire scheme; actually, it delayed it. Not just one local authority was involved, but two, and their political composition was mixed. Until those planning processes were resolved, the development consent order application could not be submitted. If those planning issues had not come up, the scheme would have been built and completed by now, which was always the intention. However, despite those delays, Ministers in the previous Government were always consistent and firmly committed to the scheme. Investment plans were already laid and pretty much there. The Minister will also know that we had a legal challenge; indeed, she wrote to me about that over the summer. It came from an environmental activist, who basically brought greater delay to the scheme, but the challenge was dismissed by the courts this summer. Of course, the general election also delayed and postponed further development. The Minister wrote to me on 2 August; I have her letter with me today. She said: “The Secretary of State has commissioned an internal review of the capital spend of DfT’s capital spend portfolio. This review will bring in external experience and move quickly to make recommendations about current and future schemes.” I asked for more details about the review, undertaking, costs, assessment criteria and timetable, and received a response on 24 September. It stated: “The Department is not currently able to provide the information you have requested.” That concerns me, and it concerns us in Essex, primarily because of the long history of this road, extensive work that has taken place and large amount of public money that has been committed to the work, consultations and studies. We need this scheme. If we are going to have more housing, planning, growth and development, which we support, then all this needs to come together. We do not want any delay or scrapping that leads to greater cost, or even to other schemes going back to the drawing board. I have been engaging with the Department and National Highways, and I should add that the scheme is widely supported by communities, local residents and businesses across the region. I am pretty certain that the Secretary of State has recently received a cross-party letter supporting the scheme and encouraging the Department to get on with it, signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale); my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin); the newly elected hon. Members for Colchester (Pam Cox) and for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman); the former Member of Colchester, who is now the chair of Transport East; Essex county council; Braintree district council; Colchester city council; Chelmsford city council; and Maldon district council. We are all united, because we recognise the long-term benefits of the scheme. Can the Minister at least confirm whether her Department is championing it? The road is currently being patched up in places. Because of the lack of investment over decades, National Highways is working on refreshes on some parts of the route. The scheme is, to coin a phrase with which the Minister will be familiar, shovel-ready. In the light of some of the re-announcements around DP World and Stansted, it will obviously bring great benefit.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Essex Highways Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Mid-Essex has been growing for decades. We support that growth, but with it we have to have the infrastructure investment. She will be familiar with the Army and Navy road and all the other trials and tribulations we have had with our infrastructure. The expansion of the Boreham junction is also pivotal to her constituency, which neighbours mine. We need this scheme to come together. The other scheme that the Department is more than familiar with is the A120 dualling scheme between Braintree and the A12, which the previous Government were committed to. This is all about the connectivity—the arteries, as we call them—that will get traffic moving. The current single carriageway stretch of the road between Braintree and Marks Tey is not fit for purpose, and has been listed as one of the most dangerous roads in England. Prior to 2010, the previous Labour Government were looking at developing the scheme, and since my election in 2010 I have been a consistent advocate and campaigner for it. We even secured funding from the previous Government to undertake the feasibility study. So much work has gone into that, and I commend everyone who worked on it. That work led to a favoured route option: to dual the A120 and integrate it into the A12 widening scheme. We have therefore always made the case that the two schemes should be coterminous and linked together. That announcement was made in 2018. The route option would ease traffic congestion and take traffic away from villages that have been literally gridlocked, such as Coggeshall. Importantly, it would also improve road safety and boost economic growth, which is crucial to our region and this part of mid-Essex. There are strong and compelling business cases. I have no doubt that the Minister has been briefed on the issue and had conversations with National Highways, which has adopted the scheme. National Highways built on the work undertaken by Essex county council, and the scheme was therefore included in the future road investment strategy pipeline. As we know, pipelines and schemes have been moved around, but previous Ministers continued to support the scheme. We are now concerned about the future of that scheme. Will the Minister commit to work with us on the dualling of the A120 and to look at providing the funding for it? I appreciate that fiscal events are coming up and there are various processes of capital allocation. That road scheme is linked to the development of the A12 and the integration there, so I would welcome an update from the Minister. There are a few other local roads that I would like to touch on. Essex county council’s outstanding leader, Councillor Kevin Bentley, is to be commended for managing to put greater resources into Essex Highways, including £37 million for highways maintenance. It makes a difference not only to fixing the infamous potholes that plague our roads across the country, but to road resurfacing and the management of assets such as the many bridges over the A12. With our extensive road network—one of the largest in the country—that funding needs to be maintained and sustained. Essex county council maintains more than 5,000 miles of roads; to put it in context, that is the distance from Witham to Gibraltar and then back to Witham and back to Gibraltar again, believe it or not. We also have more than 128,000 street lighting columns, more than 1,500 highway structures and a 4,000-mile footway network to maintain. It really adds up—it brings a new meaning to asset management. The previous Government committed an extra £121 million to Essex through to 2034. The Minister will know that that money was originally from the High Speed 2 project; the last Government were very transparent about that. In her response, will she speak about funding in that area? On 11 October, in answer to my written parliamentary question, the Minister stated: “We will provide authorities with funding to help them fix up to one million more potholes across England in each year of this parliament.” Can the Minister confirm whether that funding goes above and beyond the funds announced by the previous Government? Can she give an indication how much of that resource will be provided to Essex county council? I recognise that she cannot get into specifics, but even an illustration would be helpful. I also understand from page 129 of the Labour party manifesto that that commitment will be funded by deferring the £320 million A27 Arundel bypass scheme, freeing up £65 million a year. However, in the “Fixing the foundations” paper, which was published at the end of July and presented by the Chancellor to Parliament, the Treasury announced that the A27 scheme was being cancelled but gave no indication of those funds being diverted to local potholes or road maintenance. Some clarification from the Minister would be greatly helpful, as she announced a commitment in that parliamentary answer. I am sure the Minister is well and truly briefed on the lower Thames crossing scheme, a significant scheme that we have been championing for a while now. The decision to defer the scheme has caused frustration and confusion, particularly for businesses. The scheme will unlock billions of pounds of growth, as I know the Minister is aware, as well as housing and jobs along the Thames estuary and beyond. It will increase capacity, thereby easing congestion on the infamous Dartford crossing, where a battle has been under way for many years since the toll booths were removed. The fact of the matter is that our roads are busy. Businesses need certainty to invest, which is why the routeing scheme is important. We want to see a revolution in skills, job development and apprenticeships, and the scheme will help local SMEs. I would be very grateful for any comment the Minister can make. We also have the A127 corridor, on which I know Essex county council will be making representations, and work is being done in Chelmsford on the Army and Navy sustainable transport package. These are important areas on which I would like responses from the Minister. Essex has benefited from new investment in highways in recent years. We are a very buoyant county: we stand up and get on, and we are net contributors to the Treasury. We had a strong focus from the previous Government on bringing forward key strategic schemes to boost investment, jobs and growth. I look to the Minister, at this early stage in her ministerial role, to respond to my questions and maintain a commitment to dialogue in these areas. We will be back in this Chamber for more debates, and I will be glad to bring representatives from Essex to meet the Minister and her officials and discuss these schemes further.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Essex Highways Funding · Hansard source

  More

  If I may respectfully say so, we are not here to do partisan politics. Importantly, these schemes were funded by the previous Government. They have been under development for more than 10 years. They are subject to planning and, effectively, judicial review, particularly on the A12. It is not good enough to say that there is a black hole. Within the Department, these schemes were funded. There was investment, and these schemes are shovel-ready. The question is what is going to happen to these future schemes. If the Government want to cancel them, they should just tell us that they will be cancelled. The reality is that all the work has been done in the Department. I say respectfully that it would be really useful, although it might not happen today, to get a proper update on the status of the A12 and A120 projects, even from officials.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Patient Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  Patient waiting times are reduced dramatically through the recruitment and retention of more GPs, so will the Secretary of State welcome the work of the Anglia Ruskin medical school in Essex, and perhaps have a conversation with myself and neighbouring MPs about how that medical school could be expanded to do much more to support the recruitment and training of more MPs—more GPs in Essex?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing this debate. As the Minister will be well aware, my constituency of Witham is at the forefront of National Grid’s proposal for the Norwich-to-Tilbury upgrade of the national grid. I would like to put a number of concerns to him that my constituents and people across that part of mid-Essex have raised. This debate is about community benefit, but with the pylon development scheme there is very little dialogue about community benefit. Guidance on the community benefits of the scheme is still under development; there are therefore no cost estimates or any details of what it will actually mean for my constituents or even for those affected by the proposal. I would welcome the Minister saying more about that when he winds up. Alongside that, reports now indicate that there may be a cheaper option than pylons: tunnelling. Countries such as Germany have been at the forefront of that, along with innovation and technology. I would welcome more information from the Minister and the Department about whether that will be factored into the community discussion about wider benefits from the upgrade to the grid, and into the work that he will be undertaking. I do not think that it is deliverable by 2030, but clearly we need to make some progress. The community benefit discussion is clearly live within the Government. May I ask when the Minister will meet Members who represent Essex and the east of England for dialogue and discussion, so we can go back to our constituents and give them some assurance about what this will mean for them?

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

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will know very well from his own time in government, given the roles in which he served, that we have been privy to the details of some awful plans, plots and issues that could have inflicted a lot of problems on our country. We must always have these policies under review. I want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services. Their work behind the scenes is just outstanding, and we are blessed in so many ways with the level of scrutiny, the work they do and the resources that come from Government. I want to pay tribute to the team that set up the counter-terrorism operations centre—a new organisation established by the previous Government during the last Parliament—which focuses on the integrated approach of our security services for a lot of the operational work that takes place. We should not just pay tribute to it, but recognise that this work always has to be kept under review, because the threats change. The nature of the threats evolves and changes constantly and, as we know, terrorism is not just domestic but takes place outside this country. The Bill has had extensive consideration and consultation. It has taken into account the recommendations and details contained in reports and inquests from the Manchester Arena attack, and from the attacks at London bridge and here in Westminster, and other incidents, as is absolutely right. During my time at the Home Office, we gave a commitment to introduce a protect duty, which was welcomed across the House and by campaigners and many businesses, and that consultation was undertaken in 2021. We had to consult and consider carefully how best to implement that and improve public safety protections while being mindful of the many impacts on businesses to which the House has alluded—the need for those impacts to be proportionate and for burdens to be minimised—particularly on smaller businesses and venues, and contemplating the role and responsibilities of the regulator. The Home Secretary touched on some of those points. Since then, the draft Bill was published last year and was considered by the Home Affairs Committee, and this year the standard tier consultation took place. The results were published last month with the Bill and, importantly, the provisions have been built on and some changes made. It is right that the details have been scrutinised. It is important that we recognise the patience of the campaigners who wanted the Bill to come forward much earlier, but we needed to get the technicalities and the details right. There is no point in bringing forward legislation if we cannot operationalise it. The Home Secretary has spoken about the role of the SIA. We need to consider how the SIA will be equipped adequately. It was resourced heavily during the covid pandemic, with new duties and responsibilities, but again it is the practicalities that are important, because the Bill brings an estimated 179,000 premises under the scope of the requirements of Martyn’s law, with a distinction in place—some have a standard duty, as we have heard from the Secretary of State. It is right that the provisions are proportionate to the scale and size of premises and businesses, and that there is a link to the risk, but we do not want to see issues with the enforceability of the provisions, so I want to ask the Home Secretary and her team some questions in that regard. The Home Secretary touched on the whole issue around the SIA, the regulator and the potential to enforce civil penalties, but we need to understand the practicalities, because she also highlighted that we do not want to put additional burdens on businesses through the work that has taken place already. If businesses are not stepping up—not learning from past mistakes and the recommendations of other inquiries—how will that be picked up? Penalties are one thing, but they should be the last resort; we need these institutions and organisations to put public safety and the practicalities first. I hope that the Minister responding to the debate will talk about the impact on local authorities, including local councils and town parishes. What assurances can be given about the work under way with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support local authorities to meet these obligations, including through training, and considering the implications, practicalities and scope? Will there be financial support for them? What support will be given to schools and educational institutions on their standard duty? Given the existing measures that some premises have in place to ensure compliance with fire safety, health and safety, and crime prevention requirements, will the Minister look carefully at the interplay between those responsibilities so that the guidance is not complicated but consistent and comprehensive, and that we assist premises in minimising cost burdens while allowing them to work in an integrated way? One big lesson from Manchester, and Sir John’s inquiry and the reporting— we know this, as it was in the public domain—was that there was a lack of integration between the various services working together. That absolutely has to be recognised. We must ensure there is a golden thread running through all the services locally, so they know how to integrate and work together. The impact assessment gives an estimate of the overall cost of the standard duty and the enhanced duty over a significant period, but there is again the question of the practicalities: what does this really mean for the many organisations and institutions that will be involved? I seek clarity from the Minister about the role of planning policy in delivering Martyn’s law. This is important; with changes in planning policy, we might be able to make changes to the way in which buildings are shaped and designed, and to what local authorities take on board. We might be able to ensure that the relevant authorities receive advice and guidance from the police on how to design out some of these issues and put in safety measures, and bring in developers to introduce good designs and new concepts, future-proofing many institutions, buildings and developments. I will touch on the nature of terror incidents and the premises that need to be considered, because we need procedures to examine how best to prevent incidents from taking place and places from becoming targets. Monitoring and surveillance is second nature to our institutions, but there is also the question of how premises hosting events should respond to a particular threat or even anticipate an incident—what kinds of processes and procedures will such premises be undertaking? Perhaps the Home Secretary or the Minister could talk a bit about some of the discussions they have had with key sectors. Live venues and events were discussed earlier, but have they been consulted not just on how they will design these incidents out but on the practical measures—the kind of work that will be undertaken or the drills that will be put in place? There are a lot of lessons to learn just from recent incidents. We saw what happened at London bridge in 2017, which differed from the Finsbury Park attack, the Manchester Arena attack and the Reading Forbury Gardens attack as well. It is important that the SIA, the regulator and the Government work to ensure that those responsible for premises and events have the full duty, and can go into their own planning and preparations in the right way. I will mention one particular inquiry that is taking place, as it is in the news today: the inquiry into the 2018 Novichok poisoning in Salisbury of Dawn Sturgess, chaired by Lord Hughes of Ombersley. The Government will naturally be considering the harm and damage that that caused, because the actions of a hostile state led to the most atrocious and appalling deaths of innocent people in our country. It reminds us all that incidents come in all shapes and guises, and that we need to find better ways to protect the public and put public safety first. I conclude by asking the Minister about support for victims of terrorism. The Home Office has been conducting an internal review into the support package available to victims of terrorism, and considering the introduction of a national day of service and tribute to victims of terrorism. Travis Frain, whom the ministerial team will be familiar with and know of, has been a long-standing and deeply passionate campaigner for that. Ministers prior to the election were looking at this matter as well, so we would welcome even a small update on the Government’s thinking regarding support for victims of terrorism and on some of the work that Travis was leading. I note from the programme motion that the Government are keen for the Bill to complete its Committee stage by mid-November. To ensure it progresses quickly, I hope that Members across both Houses will ask the right questions and work in a practical way with the industry—we have not even touched on the insurance industry but I am sure that will all be covered in Committee—and look at how we can start providing public protection and safety sooner rather than later. I say this in my concluding remarks, particularly recognising that Figen Murray and others are here today watching the debate, because we owe it to them, to their families and to so many who have suffered and who have been waiting in anticipation for this legislation. We owe it to them to enact these measures in a practical way: to give them and the public confidence, as they look to us all to drive this legislation forward with positive outcomes, sooner rather than later.

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

  More

  I think it is right that at this moment we all pause to remember those who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism, and not just in recent years but across many decades. I pay particular tribute to Figen Murray, Martyn Hett’s mother, whose role in this legislation has been recognised today by the whole House. Other families have lost loved ones to terrorism, but she has single-handedly championed Martyn’s law. I have had the great privilege of spending time with Figen, and with so many other families, and it is quite something, frankly, to listen to them speak not just of their concerns, heartbreak and suffering, but of their determined resolve to seek justice for their loved ones, and to steer this legislation across different political parties and bring it before Parliament. I do not have enough words to pay tribute to Figen and so many others, but I can say that the tragedy that has affected their lives has led them to stand tall. There are other individuals such as Travis Frain, who has made such a big impact by standing up and giving voice to the victims of these atrocities, and they all deserve the greatest recognition and respect. They have shown a great deal of courage in dealing with the pain, suffering and trauma that they have experienced, and in working towards making our country and our community safe, and protecting other citizens from the suffering and hardship that they themselves have faced. It is a testament to their campaign that Martyn’s law has consistently attracted cross-party support. I want to thank everyone in the House, including those on both Front Benches and the Home Affairs Committee, which examined the draft Bill, as well as everyone who has worked on progressing Martyn’s law from 2021 onwards. That was when the first consultation took place, for 18 weeks. It provided some startling insights into the public’s attitudes towards the protection of venues and the steps they wanted their Government to advance. So many people have been involved in this legislation, but I do want to pay tribute to a former Security Minister who worked on this with me in the Home Office. James Brokenshire, who was a diligent Security Minister, led this work. This month marks the third anniversary of his passing, and he will be in our thoughts. Of course, our thoughts and prayers must also be with the family of Sir David Amess, whose murder took place three years ago tomorrow. We look at his plaque in the same way that we look at the plaque in memory of Jo Cox. They and their families were victims of some of the atrocities that have taken place in our country.

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

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her comments. Debates such as this concentrate all our minds and thoughts on how we must work together. It is so sad, but many of the Members here have spoken about Sir David and Jo, and in fact great security measures have then been enacted. Indeed, I pay tribute to Mr Speaker, staff members and everyone who has stepped up to do so. However, there is a threat here, which is the suffering, the loss and the pain, and as has been said in the debates thus far, the Manchester Arena tragedy will live with so many of us for so long. I set up the inquiry when I was Home Secretary, and many of the findings of the important work of Sir John Saunders were absolutely shocking. The families had to sit through and participate in the inquiry, and they were retraumatised to a certain extent while giving evidence and listening to some of the failings, which was deeply painful. This is very much about the lessons we can learn collectively, and not just across Government but as a society. This Bill will always be in memory of Martyn, of course, but it is also in memory of the many others affected.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to open my remarks by recognising that in this important debate we all want to ensure that families who rent have good access to quality homes and housing. That is the baseline that we must all recognise and acknowledge, with landlords in the private and social sector doing the right thing when it comes to their responsibilities, their obligations and their duties to their tenants. This House needs to be honest with itself and recognise that during these debates in recent years, not just today’s debate, we have seen landlords vilified. There is no question but that there are some terrible and shocking examples—as was mentioned earlier, there are examples in this very House as well—and it is right that they are exposed. It is right that there are sanctions for those awful landlords and it is important that, throughout the passage of this Bill and the discussions in this House, we all act responsibly to set the right bar and the right standards. That is crucial. Although we have those shocking examples, we should not forget that the overwhelming majority of landlords work hard to invest in their properties and do the right thing by their tenants. That is fundamental to providing housing supply in the market—there has been back-and-forth between those on the two Front Benches already around what will happen to housing supply, but we should bear that in mind through the type of regulation and legislation that this Government are intent on passing. We should not focus disproportionately on the minority who need to raise their bar and be held to account; as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, we must work through the unintended consequences of this legislation. I want to pose some questions to those on the Government Front Bench. First, from the landlords’ perspective, may we have some transparency on the costs and impacts? The Government will not have the details yet as this is a Second Reading debate, but we should recognise that during the passage of this legislation landlords will almost inevitably be passing on the costs arising from certain clauses through higher rents. Coming back to unintended consequences, there are also clauses on controlling rent increases and initial rent reviews for tenants and they could be set higher; the Government should be thinking about this. The costs of selective licensing schemes already introduced by local authorities have been passed on to new tenants through tenancy agreements, so we need to look at what works and what does not work. Moreover, landlords are leaving the market as a result of what they know from the draft legislation about taxation and regulation, and we need to look at what that means for private sector supply and what will happen to the market costs of rent. My next questions, in the time I have left, are on housing supply. I do believe that we need more social housing. I represent a constituency with four local authorities, and our house building has been phenomenal over the last decade. That has predominantly been in the private sector but also in the social housing sector. My local authorities play a very significant role in planning, housing and development, and we all recognise the heavy the work that takes place in those areas, but I would like to know how the Government are going to fund their enforcement policies for local authorities, and how the capability will be put in place and how the prioritisation will come together. I know there will be further scrutiny and questions during the passage of this Bill, and I will be pressing those to the Government Front Bench.

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

  More

  The Minister was in a similar debate this morning, in which he heard a range of views. He is a Treasury Minister, not an Education Minister or the Education Secretary; will he commit to publishing an impact assessment on the overall cost of this policy? There were parents in the Gallery listening to the debate this morning, and it is clear that there will be a legal challenge to this policy. Will the Treasury also publish the potential cost of that legal challenge and the bill that his Department will be footing in order to meet it?

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

  More

  It is important to start by saying that this entire policy is dogmatic and rooted in the politics of envy—that really is self-evident. It comes from a self-serving socialist Government that are ignorant and blind to the harm that it will lead to for families up and down the country. In the time that I have, I would like to pose a series of questions directly to the Government. This is not only a bad policy; there has been no information on its implementation and what it means for private schools and state schools. That has been raised by shadow Front Benchers and I think we should get some transparency. I would like a response later on. When the Minister responds, I would also like to hear the details of the costs caused by adding VAT to school fees and the cost of the removal of the business rates exemption. The House has a right to hear where the impact assessment is, what the fiscal projections will be and what the costs will be across every Government Department that is affected. That will be the Department for Education but also the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because it is local councils that will continue to pick up the costs. I put a question about this next matter directly to the Exchequer Secretary, who was also in the Westminster Hall debate this morning. We know that legal action is coming, and I think that the Government should fess up and tell us what percentage of the DFE budget will be put aside to fund the legal challenge. There are parents out there who are so unhappy about this—we met some of them this morning—and they are adamant that they will pursue legal action. There are many other questions, such as about justification and the implications for local authorities, but I think the point about SEND is important. The House of Commons has published a note that says that for 2024-25, the previous Government had been increasing SEND funding to over £10.4 billion in real cash terms. Is that funding going to go up under this Government, in anticipation of the implications of this policy for children with special educational needs? That could include a growing demand for education, health and care plans. Local authorities are failing, and many of them are Labour authorities. Some of them have gone bankrupt as well in recent years. There will be an impact on state schools, as they will have to accommodate additional pupils. We need some honesty and transparency around this. Class sizes are going to increase in state schools. How is that going to increase the educational outcomes of children attending state schools? How is that going to raise the bar and increase standards in state schools? We all believe in good educational outcomes for all children across the entire country and we want our education system to be first class and to serve all children, but fundamentally this is just an ill-thought-out policy that will have more costs associated with it and devastating impacts for children attending independent schools. I ask the Minister in his summing up to show a little bit of humility— [ Interruption ] — and recognise the implications for these children. Labour Members are giggling, but actually this is about children and about the impact of this policy on children whose education will be affected.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On special educational needs, this measure will devastate many families around the country who make huge sacrifices. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us what mitigations and support will be given to local authorities to cover the cost and the pressures they face, particularly with shortages in special educational needs provision across the country?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), have spoken passionately about the need to upgrade the national grid, but do they recognise the concerns of people across the east of England, including in the Witham constituency, about what that means for their local communities? The Under-Secretary has said that he will meet Members of Parliament, but I ask him very politely whether he and representatives and Ministers from the Department will also meet members of the communities that are affected by this matter.

• 7 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  With employers in Witham and across the country about to be whacked with a barrage of higher taxes, thanks to this Government, how do the Government expect employment levels to stay high? How do they expect small businesses to be at the heart of any employment strategy that they claim to have?

• 7 Oct 2024 · Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the significance of diplomacy right now, and I think the entire House would agree that, across the region itself, leaders must come together. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with Gulf Co-operation Council leaders about the behaviour—the aggressive behaviour—of their neighbour Iran, and what role they can play in de-escalation and preventing Iran from further escalating this terrible conflict?