Graham Stuart
MP for Beverley and Holderness · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I hope and expect that we can move forward in the right way and get the balance right between being overly prescriptive to the banking industry and setting a clear sense of direction to make sure that no one is left behind, as so many Members have set out.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate.”
“Is my hon. Friend as astonished as I am that the Minister—I know she is new to her post—has come here to propose a six-month extension of the movement of costs from bills to the Exchequer and cannot tell the Committee how much money that will cost?”
“The Minister is being most generous again. I did not ask her about protecting consumers from energy price shocks; I asked about a clear, unequivocal manifesto pledge to reduce household energy bills by £300. She, like her predecessors, refuses to address it directly. It was a clear promise.”
“Banking hubs themselves came out of an industry response from the NatWest executive. Does the Minister agree that we must present the information from the Lloyd review to the banking groups, be clear about what we want, and give them the opportunity to respond and provide a solution, as they did with banking hubs, so that we can perhaps a…”
“I am pleased to say that Lloyds listened and, as of this morning, people can deposit cheques at those places. These issues being raised by Members across the House today are important. I trust that given the timing of the Richard Lloyd report, the Minister in her seat will make sure that they are be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,829 lines we hold for Graham Stuart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 117.
“I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. There is a particular change today, because we have a three-line Whip on a House matter. Members have spoken on behalf of the Government line. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who is in his place, said that he did not think the three-line Whip was a good idea, and others did not want to talk about it, but who was the three-line Whip for? Perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister can tell us. Labour Members have told us that they will always vote with their conscience and do the right thing, yet after the Whips had phoned round, it was decided that they must impose a three-line Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who has never been a Whip and does not have much fondness for them, has put the ghastly deed at their door.”
“The hon. Lady, who is a brilliant tennis player and a great partner, will forgive me if I give way to the hon. Member for Rugby, whom I referenced and should therefore allow to come in.”
“It is dominated by Labour MPs, but such is the lack of confidence in No. 10—perhaps in the Whips Office and certainly in the Cabinet—that not only does the Prime Minister not trust the Labour MPs on the Privileges Committee; he does not even trust all the other Labour Members, who are being dragooned by a three-line Whip into voting for something, when no such Whip should ever have been applied.”
“We have so many questions—even before we get to last week, when, as the hon. Member for Rugby said, the Prime Minister was here. Under questioning from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who does a brilliant job of keeping her temper while he evades and seeks not to answer, the Prime Minister said that there had been no pressure whatsoever. That is clearly not true, given that Olly Robbins repeatedly said how much pressure there was. There are plenty of reasons to believe that the Prime Minister, who said that he was going to set a higher standard, has misled this House. That is all we need; as Mr Speaker said, we are not judge and jury today when it comes to whether he actually misled the House. That is why we have the Privileges Committee to look at the matter.”
“Due process was not followed. Only because of the Humble Address have we found out that the Cabinet Secretary’s official advice to the Prime Minister was that vetting must be done before the announcement of a political appointee—and again, the Government had to give way halfway through the debate as they could see the direction it was going in. That advice was not in the public domain when Chris Wormald, who will have to answer for his own judgments, came out and said that all due process had been followed. But anyone who could read the advice and see what happened can clearly see that it was not followed. Chris Wormald’s letter was false and wrong. I do not see how it can be squared as the great defence of the Prime Minister. We have had no answers to that point.”
“We have gone over that; Members will be deeply relieved to hear that I will not go over it again. But he said that due process had been followed. We have evidence today: Morgan McSweeney said he did the interview. He is an old pal of Mandelson’s—the man pushing for his appointment. He is the guy who asked Mandelson the questions. Then, whoa—“Let’s review the answers that McSweeney got and get Lord Doyle”—another pal of them both—“to provide the independent review.” That is what the Prime Minister presided over, all to deliver what McSweeney also made clear today was absolutely the Prime Minister’s decision. The Prime Minister made the decision. He got his mates in this crony boys’ club to sit around, review each other and put Mandelson into place. Then he came here—this is the point—and said that due process was followed.”
“As so often, the hon. Gentleman does two things brilliantly: he reinforces his merit with the Whips when it comes to a future position, yet makes our case for us. The Prime Minister was dragged before the House. It is not just me—Mr Speaker was falling out with him and he is a former Labour MP. This is the frustration of a whole nation at a man who promised that he would be open and transparent but who cannot, ever, just give a straightforward answer. It has got to the point where if he was asked whether he would like mash or new potatoes, he would start talking to his wife about pork chops. He just cannot answer the question. I say to the hon. Member for Rugby that when the Prime Minister was dragged here—this is the issue today—he misled this House.”
“This is a humiliating day for the Prime Minister, and for the House, and for the whole country, yet still the Prime Minister is not being open with us. He is relying on some later inquiry, when the Cabinet Secretary told him in writing, in the official briefing, that he must seek vetting prior to the appointment of a political appointee. That is true, is it not, Prime Minister? And can you give a straight answer, just for once?”
“I think anyone outside this place watching would think that the reason why the Minister will not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment on this subject is a sort of pride and an inability to change on behalf of Government. There is no real argument against the amendment, and she has not made such an argument. Neither is there an argument against having an immediate statutory ban on social media. Her earlier argument about the addictive design of social media being included in the consultation made no sense either, because if no children under 16 can access social media, it does not matter how it is designed, because it will not be having the noxious effect it currently has on them.”
“Does my right hon. Friend share with me a certain sympathy for the Minister, who has obviously been ordered by the Secretary of State to come and make the preposterous case that on the one hand the whole problem has been solved and on the other—in a complete logical contradistinction—if the consultation concludes that this does need to be put in statute, the Government will then go about doing it? Well, which is it? Have they solved the problem, as the Minister claimed, or could the consultation yet tell us that it needs to be legislated for? Clearly it needs to be legislated for, and clearly the Minister—who is smart, likeable and decent, and committed to the welfare of children—has been put in an impossible position, arguing a ridiculous case. Does my right hon. Friend agree?”
“I just want to say thank you to the hon. Lady for persisting, and showing what a Back Bencher can do by persisting, keeping going, winning the argument, bringing it around and making a material difference to the lives of people who, as she said, already suffer enough.”
“If we know that it is wrong, if we know that it is harmful, if we know that it is damaging children’s futures and their mental health—we have parents in the Public Gallery who have lost their children as a result of this stuff—how can we say that we are just being thorough when there are no clear questions that we need an answer to and no clear questions were set out?”
“If we pass a law to ban smartphones in schools, in primary legislation, I would be pretty confident that that would mean that schools would not have smartphones during the school day. She has probably been put up to it by her Secretary of State, who will not let her do the obvious and sensible thing, which is to listen to colleagues on all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales studiously stuck to the party line but none the less made an emotionally powerful argument for action now, albeit just managing to say, “Well, if you have to do your consultation, get on with it.” The arguments from the Minister do not really stack up. This is not political point scoring—I hope it is not —but children are suffering every single day and month that this goes on.”
“Teachers such as Hannah are spending their time investigating what pupils have seen on Facebook or X, when, as I say, they should be teaching physics or art. In too many schools, smartphones are everywhere. I never seek to be rude, and in particular not to the Minister, but she suggests that the problem is solved. The problem is not solved. Smartphones are everywhere in too many schools, meaning that students are scrolling, not learning, and staff are policing, not teaching. That is why I will also vote for amendment 106, which would require schools to ban smartphones during the school day. It means that governing bodies, headteachers and parents—whoever—have absolute clarity. I did not really understand the Minister’s argument, suggesting that passing it into law would not have effect.”
“Lords amendment 38 sets a clear boundary so that parents are not isolated in their decision making, and when John’s children ask why they cannot go on Instagram, he can say, “Sorry, but that is the law.” Since MPs seem to get blamed for pretty much everything else, if parents say, “It’s because Graham says you can’t; it’s not my fault,” I will take that. If as a result one child is happier and healthier, that is something we can all be pleased with. Parents are not alone in saying that the relationship with technology is broken; teachers say it too. Hannah, a teacher from Hedon in my constituency, tells me that she deals with the consequences of online harms every single day and she fears the long-term impact on her pupils.”
“As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, it is a “fight for childhood”. That is a good slogan, because unlike most slogans it has some real heart and substance to it. We need to support parents like John in Beverley, who tells me that his children feel constant pressure to be online and compare themselves endlessly with others. John is right. Those of us who are parents know that sometimes the kindest word we can say to a child is no—only to hear the inevitable response, “But Billy’s mum lets him do it.” It is not fair that parents like John, who are doing their best each day, face that battle alone.”
“It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had significant and interesting contributions from both sides of the House so far. I will speak in support of Lords amendments 38 and 106. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) just set out in a powerful speech, social media is too often toxic in its effect on children, and parents who want to act—again, exactly as he just pointed out—fear isolating their children from their friends who are all online. Teachers, who want to protect children, spend their days investigating claims of cyber-bullying instead of boosting learning, which is their job. Our children struggle to escape the clutches of algorithms that are designed to be addictive. That is why I will vote for Lords amendment 38, to save children from that toxic world and give them their childhood back.”
“If there is evidence to suggest that schools will disapply primary statute that says smartphones can never be used in schools during the school day, and that headteachers up and down the land will literally break the law, okay, let us hear it. That seems like nonsense to me. What case is there? What do we need to know about smartphones to not just put this in the Bill and, as soon as it becomes law, see every single school in the land ensure that there are no smartphones, with no argument? It is obvious, is it not? I will happily give away to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood again.”
“Again, with no disrespect to the Minister, I think the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has made a stronger case, but lacking in the specifics. It would be important to understand exactly what it is that the Government wish to find out. Then we could better understand why there would be a cause for delay. I have not been able to understand precisely what that is. Let us take the issue of smartphones in schools. We have absolute denunciation from the Minister of the use of smartphones in schools, yet a kind of smokescreen has been thrown up that somehow passing into statute that smartphones cannot be in schools during the school day is somehow not the solution.”
“The parents in the Gallery and across the country are looking on and wondering what on earth is keeping us back. At a time when there is a disconnect between ordinary people and politics, it is obvious that we need to act. We have the opportunity to act—we have legislation that has a slot in Parliament—yet we are still coming up with bogus excuses for inaction. Parents have had enough.”
“Smartphones give children constant access to social media, and social media gives them algorithms designed to keep them scrolling. That is why these amendments must be passed together. One tackles the addictive platforms; the other restores classrooms to places of learning. We would never allow our children to be abandoned in a car park full of strangers, so why are we leaving them alone in chatrooms? Data from the Youth Endowment Fund shows that 70% of teenagers—vulnerable children—have seen violent content online, despite only 6% actively searching for it. That is all because of the algorithms. Children are not seeking extreme content; it is pushed at them. Knives, pornography and real-life violence are being delivered by addictive algorithms designed to keep children scrolling, all in the name of so-called fun.”
“I thank the hon. Lady, but it is not like the Select Committee has never looked at this issue; it has looked at it repeatedly. If we are being unfair, then just let us know. What is the problem with banning smartphones in schools in the legislation? The hon. Lady has given an excellent answer, and I accept her offer and will ensure that I have a look at the evidence, but I still do not have an answer on what we are looking for. What we need is a ban. What the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) wants to see is a ban. We know that smartphones in school are harmful, and we need to get on with this. The problem we face involves not just social media but smartphones. It is the combination of the two together.”
“The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She makes a fair point about the greater complexity around social media. I would have liked greater clarity in this debate about what questions need to be answered, and how those answers would be pursued, but she is so right on the issue of smartphones. There is literally no reason not to act. I have been a Minister at the Dispatch Box, and with no disrespect to the excellent supporting civil servants, there is a tendency for Government, including the civil service, to resist all amendment and change. It becomes about defending the first script regardless, even when it is obvious that it should be changed. Even when there are parents in the Gallery who have suffered the most unimaginable loss, somehow the system still resists.”
“That is a simple logic, beautifully expressed. There is no argument against a ban, is there? Smoke is being blown in our faces. The Minister is better than this. I say this to the Government Whip: I hope that the Government will listen in the Chamber tonight. I remember an Adjournment debate during my first Parliament, when we were again in opposition. Halfway through, the Minister tore up his briefing notes and said, “Actually, do you know what? It says here that I should resist this, but the hon. Member is right; I will seek legislation. We will get the opportunity and make the change that he has asked for, because what he says is true.” Should not all of us be trying to deal with what is true, right and proper? We must recognise complexity when it is there, but where there is a simple answer, we should simply get on with it.”
“Thanks very much—the Government Whip agrees with me; that is always nice. Let us act, listen to the parents and the people out there, and get on it. I know that the Ministers on the Front Bench do not get up in the morning to make the world a worse place, let alone to make children suffer. They are here to try to make children’s lives better, and there is a real opportunity here to do that. I hope that Government Members will consider breaking from the fearsome Whips—we have heard the Government Whip shouting from a sedentary position. Tell him that he is best ignored, and vote with us to make things better for children.”
“May I pursue the point about coastal communities and cancer care? A young dad in Withernsea, a coastal town in my east Yorkshire constituency, went to the doctor repeatedly saying that there was something wrong with him and was repeatedly told that he was fine, before being diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He survived, but only just. What, in real terms, will happen to ensure that communities such as those in Withernsea can see decent cancer care and proper diagnosis, especially given that, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), Hull university teaching hospitals NHS trust is one of the worst-performing trusts in the country?”
“Prime Minister, get a learning, get a teaching—but make sure it is not with the Energy Secretary.”
“In rural and coastal communities, hospitality is already under massive pressure thanks to the tax rises, regulatory impacts and other negative impositions of this Government. May I urge Ministers to ensure that if we are to bring in a registration scheme, we gather the data and do not move in too heavy-handedly, because we risk further damage to a hospitality sector that does not need it? We need to establish the data and find out whether further action is required.”
“Going further and faster on renewables is entirely compatible with new licences in the North sea. My constituents can see that the Prime Minister has very little power to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but total power to order new licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank in the North sea. How can he stand there and say that energy independence is the goal while he tries desperately to get oil and gas from elsewhere, which he can do little about, and refuses to overrule his insane Secretary of State for Energy and ensure that we produce— [ Interruption. ] I withdraw that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can the Prime Minister do so while refusing to overrule the crazy policies of the Secretary of State for Energy, who insists on not producing oil and gas here? It makes no sense.”
“13. Whether her Department is taking steps to ensure that open access rail services continue to be available in the Beverley and Holderness constituency.”
“As the Minister knows, before Hull Trains, Hull and east Yorkshire were a forgotten part of the rail network. Hull Trains put that right, connecting the great port city of Hull, and indeed Beverley, directly to London. It is also one of the most popular train services in the whole country. I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said, so will he meet me—and perhaps colleagues—to discuss the future of open access and Hull Trains, to ensure that it is safeguarded into the 2030s and beyond, as I know he wants?”
“The Minister will be aware that major hydrogen projects in the Humber area, including those led by National Gas, are ready to go. They are vital to our region, which has £18 billion of value-add and 360,000 jobs, but without certainty from Government, investors cannot commit. When will the Government open the allocation rounds for the hydrogen transport and storage business models so that this investment can actually move forward?”
“Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel sorry not only for all the consumers up and down the country who see billions of taxes that could be paid if we just produced more oil and gas here—that could be used to lower their taxes when they fill up their cars and travel to work—but for the two Ministers on the Front Bench, the hon. Members for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) and for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)? Neither of them is an idiot, but they have been captured by an ideological Secretary of State who is literally making them swear that black is white.”
“If we were to accept the argument that it would make no difference to the international price—notwithstanding the fact that there are global markets and that supply and demand leads to much lower prices in some places than in others—we are still talking about billions of pounds in forgone taxes, which could be used to reduce prices, to reduce VAT and to reduce all sorts of impositions on the British people, saving not pennies but many pounds on ordinary people’s bills. That is true, isn’t it, Minister?”
“The Minister has been most generous in giving way. He will know that Harbour Energy was the single largest producer in the North sea—it is leaving. He will know that it has been devastating for so many workers in the industry. He will also know that, by all projections, in 2050 this country will still be dependent on oil and gas in all scenarios. Yet, by not doing new licences, we will by definition be more dependent on foreign supply, much of it having to come through the strait of Hormuz. How can that make any sense? I do not think the Minister thinks it does, but I suppose he is forced to stand on his feet and repeat the nonsense that comes out of the mouth of his Secretary of State.”
“I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is being very generous in giving way. She is nearly making the right point, which is that the people who work in oil and gas need the transition. This Government are pulling the rug from under them. Hydrogen, carbon capture, floating offshore wind and other developing technologies—even tidal—are not growing quickly enough and fast enough to give those people jobs. That is the point. The Government are destroying the very engineering capability we need for the transition and putting up emissions while doing so, by having imports instead of domestic production. It is mad.”
“The Conservatives are suggesting that our producing more oil and gas in the North sea will change the global price.” Well, I went back to the motion, and nowhere does it say that. That is the case of the “crazies” on the Government Benches—I do not know if that is parliamentary or not—and I include the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), in that. This is lunacy made flesh.”
“It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who follows in a tradition of Government Back Benchers standing up and trying to make the case for the utterly insane, the truly crazy and the utterly groundless. I feel more sorry for the hon. Lady than I do for the Ministers on the Front Bench, because we know that this impossible position cannot be maintained. I do not know whether the Government are on U-turn No. 13, 14, 15 or 16—who can count them?—but I guarantee that it is impossible to maintain the current position; it rests on a number of fallacies. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said it as passionately as any of the Government Members, did she not? They say, “Oh, it is outrageous!”
“It is even more ironic, given the attitudes of Labour Members, that according to the North Sea Transition Authority, that gas comes with four times the embedded emissions. It is environmentally insane as well as economically insane.”
“I return to the point about price, because Labour colleagues put so much effort into saying, “How dare they suggest that it will change the price?” There are localised prices, so it is also not true to say that oil and gas have a global price and we have to take that price regardless. As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) interjected earlier, in the United States, the price of gas is between a third and a quarter of the price that it is here. Getting supply and demand in the right balance does make a difference. Relying on LNG means that we have to liquefy it, gasify it, ship it with specialist ships and put it into specialist infrastructure to bring it into the UK gas grid, which all costs money.”
“My right hon. Friend is right. I was incredulous when listening to the incredible things that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said. Let me go back to this big, passionate attack. That production will not change the global oil price, but it will help to employ 200,000 people in this country, with all the engineering expertise and the deep supply chain in this country, in oil and gas. It will help to provide gas, nearly all of which—practically 100% of the gas produced in the North sea—comes into the UK grid. Nearly all of it is consumed here. Some of it goes through interconnectors in either direction the other way, but the idea that it does not directly contribute to our energy security is for the birds.”
“We are importing more, with higher emissions than if we produced it here, and the net result is that we do not consume or burn a single drop less of oil or gas. The Labour party’s position is untenable.”
“For the purposes of today, I will leave aside the renewables market, but I notice that RenewableUK agrees with the chief executive of Octopus Energy that it is crazy, along with the heads of the unions responsible. They all agree that this is crazy. There is going to be a U-turn, and we are going to have the comic sight of the poor Minister on the Front Bench—a very likeable and very competent Minister—coming to this House to explain why the exact opposite of what he is arguing today is now the truth. That is going to happen, and it has to happen, because if the Government do not U-turn, we will lose jobs, tax revenue and energy security. I notice that those are the three qualities that are in the motion, because they are the vital things that we are missing by not drilling for oil and gas in the North sea while we continue to import it.”
“Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also need to see the hydrogen storage and transport model issued by the Government as quickly as possible?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman realise—he may not, because I know that some of the stuff he is fed by those on the Government Front Bench may not help him—that whereas only 6.5% of electricity came from renewables in 2010, the proportion was over 50% when we left power? He can criticise the Conservative Government all he likes, but suggesting that one of the greatest transformations and moves to renewables by any country in the history of the world was some kind of non-event is to mislead the House, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is an honourable man, would never seek to do that.”
“The only doubling down being done is by the Minister, who insists that we import more from abroad. Where energy is produced makes no difference to how much we consume. It can either be produced abroad or it can be produced here, with jobs, tax and lower emissions. Why on earth would he choose for it to be done abroad?”
“My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about North sea oil and gas extraction. The Labour party says that will not make any difference to the global price of oil and gas, but billions and billions of pounds in tax will be lost as a result of having no new licences in the North sea. Those billions could be used to replace the revenues generated by fuel duty. In fact, if the Government wished, they could convert those billions into cuts in price at the pump for every single family in the country, including those in rural Beverley and Holderness who are suffering today.”
“I do not know whether I am being picked on or specially singled out, but in any case, Mr Speaker, thank you for selecting me. One aspect that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned today is the Clean Power 2030 action plan. Bringing it forward from 2035 means that we are overpaying for the renewables, and locking in those overpayments for 20 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, along with the immediate negative impacts on our economy and, most importantly, on our constituents, locking in long-term contracts for overpriced renewables will increase the cost of living even further?”
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. With the strait of Hormuz in effect closed, does that not prove the point we have been making for years, which is how important it is for our energy security to have new licences in the North sea? The Minister is known as “Torsten Tax”, so I will ask him about tax. Does he accept that not having new licences in the North sea will lose this country billions in tax revenue—yes or no?”
“My right hon. Friend will have noted, as I have, that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and other Labour Members wish to talk about the past. Our constituents, and graduates who are paying these outrageous sums, want to talk about the future. At the general election, they listened to Labour’s promises on lowering costs for graduates, but the Government are doing exactly the opposite. By deflecting and talking about the past rather than accepting responsibility for the government that they are delivering, Labour Members are letting down all those young people, whose aspirations should be respected.”