Jesse Norman
MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“In view of the new Prime Minister’s spending priorities, it now seems highly unlikely that the ruinously expensive current plans will be put to the House before the end of this year. Seven months have already passed with no action.”
“10 North have real spending powers of its own? If the answer is yes, then this will be a new kind of cross-departmental Ministry—perhaps a territorial Ministry, like a regional Government but with no defined scope or mandate. We will need to see the legal instruments delegating Treasury authority and functions to it.”
“I rather fear that, given our longevity and at least the level of banter on the Government side of the Dispatch Box, we will be seen over time as the Morecambe and Wise, or perhaps the two Ronnies, of British politics.”
“The past few weeks have brought news of the deaths of Dolly Parton, Tim Curry and Wendell Berry. I am sure that many colleagues will share my sense of shock and sadness at the loss of those extraordinary figures, but also give great thanks for their lives. Truly, we live in a world of change.”
“10 North will not have spending power of its own, then ultimately the Treasury and the Chancellor will continue to sign off on its public spending and on any taxing matters. Decentralisation is really important, but No. 10 North will not be a means of decentralisation in this scenario; it will be just another layer of Government.”
“But we are not going to cast nasturtiums, in the words of a friend of mine, on any of this nonsense—not even on Baroness Lloyd and the hopeless Building Digital UK, who have entirely failed to address the issue of fibre broadband in neglected parts of my constituency and simply repeated the same language of incompetence and failure to me…”
The complete record
Every one of 5,414 lines we hold for Jesse Norman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 109.
“Meanwhile, the Chancellor’s wizard wheeze of the autumn to set up a new Office for Value for Money was publicly rubbished in the most unsparing terms by the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who described it as “an understaffed, poorly defined organisation…set up with a vague remit and no clear plan to measure its effectiveness.” That is from the Chancellor’s own Labour colleague. Spending reviews are always fraught, and this one will be still more so, because the Chancellor has boxed herself in so badly on taxes and spending. What the Government think will be achieved by a couple of dozen hastily assembled newbies and some adolescent management consultants running around—apart from making things even worse—is hard to imagine.”
“Over the past few months, the Labour party has been generous indeed in offering the people of this country regular evidence of its remarkable incompetence, but even by its formidable standards it has excelled itself this week. The Prime Minister said some time ago in terms that he prefers Davos to Westminster, but this week he has left the global hobnobbing and après-ski of the World Economic Forum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist her in her relentless search for growth. Her latest idea is to revive the third runway at Heathrow: a project so toxic to her Labour colleagues that it had been briefed against by the Energy Secretary and publicly rejected by the Mayor of London before it was even preannounced. As so often, I am afraid we will have to wait for the announcement to be made in this House.”
“I know the Leader of the House is a strong believer in transparency and accountability, so will she have the Treasury update the House on what form that investment has taken, how much of it has been received and where it is being spent? Frankly, it is more than doubtful that three months of post-election chaos in the Government had any such effect in boosting investment, but we will see when the Government publish the numbers, as I am sure they will. If it turns out like the so-called national wealth fund, we will know that the Labour Government are more than happy to take credit for at least some of the work of the previous Government, provided that they can put their own name on it.”
“As Lord Livermore said in a debate in the other House in October, the national wealth fund is, in fact, the UK Infrastructure Bank with a new name and a bit more capital. I know something about the UK Infrastructure Bank, because I set it up in 2021 when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It has an absolutely world-class leadership team and I am not remotely surprised to see it doing so well. But the idea that its recent success is attributable to a Labour Government who have done little more than rebrand it is an embarrassing joke. Its success has been powered by good institutional design, a top team, tonnes of talented employees and more than four years of hard work. One recalls the Government’s attempt to claim credit for £63 billion of international cash in the October investment summit.”
“Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has been forced not only to express “full confidence” in the Chancellor—always a death knell—but to insist that she will remain in post for the full period of this Government. Let us see how that works out. It has been extraordinary, in particular, to see her attacked by her own colleagues, who have said: “we’re going back to austerity in all but name.” Luckily, the Government were able to announce some good news in the form of the latest results of the national wealth fund, which has apparently generated more than 6,000 jobs and £1.6 billion in private investment over the last six months—except that the announcement is, I am afraid, entirely disingenuous.”
“The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said this week that stagflation—that toxic combination of recession and inflation—is now “a live risk”. Even the very, very modest GDP growth reported for November was below expectations. At some point, the Government’s current spending splurge will doubtless start to nudge growth upwards over the coming year, but in the meantime we will have to look forward to the grim prospect of the national insurance changes in April and the horrors of the Employment Rights Bill, which even by the Government’s own estimates will cost employers an extra £5 billion a year. So dire has the Chancellor’s position become that she has been forced to ask Cabinet colleagues for ideas of growth. Given the galaxy of business talent around the Cabinet table, how can that possibly go wrong?”
“I am sure that the Leader of the House and every Member will join me in welcoming the news overnight of a ceasefire in Gaza. Let us hope and pray that it is as effective, comprehensive and long-lasting as possible. Back at home, all one can say is that it has been another extraordinary week for the Government, though possibly not in the way that they would have wanted. We have had the Government’s anti-corruption Minister herself being named for corruption by another country in the face of an international investigation into embezzlement of development and other funds. We have had the unusually unlovely sight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a desperate search for growth that has taken her to Beijing and back—though with precious little result, it seems.”
“I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on an immensely important topic, and I am grateful to you, Mr Dowd, for allowing a quick intervention from a shadow Front Bencher on a matter of great constituency interest. She will be aware that I and others have tried to fight this battle for at least four years. Will she support my request that the Government look again at the plan for the River Wye and, even if they do not adopt the detail of it, at least preserve the £35 million of funding pledged by the previous Government, or something close to it, to support the restoration of the river?”
“Dither, delay and divisive policy making. Reform of social care is a huge issue for millions of people across this country and could lift huge burdens from the NHS, yet this week we learned that, despite all Labour’s promises of change, it has been kicked into the long grass. In closing, this Government were elected to own key issues and to address them, not to avoid the hard problems, parrot the usual political lines, blame other people and play nice to their friends in the unions. They need to stop blaming others, get on and show the country they can lead.”
“We have had endless announcements about new commissions and initiatives, each testimony to Labour’s hopeless lack of planning before the election. We had a delayed autumn Budget and this year we will have a spending review that, if it is not derailed by fiscal events, could easily last until June or July, building up to a full year of stasis and stagnation since the general election. A final resolution might be to show us some leadership. The Prime Minister pointed out, and rightly so, that in 2010 the incoming Government inherited public finances in desperate need of repair. He said “we cannot tax our way to prosperity or spend our way to better public services.” Those are refreshingly honest, cross-party recognitions of the difficulty of government, but when it comes to action, what have we seen?”
“The damage will not be just to the Chancellor’s own reputation; it will damage the pockets of every person in every household in this country. As we think about the new year, what resolutions should the House encourage the Government to adopt? I suggest three. First, stop taking politically driven measures that actively hurt the economy. Stop punishing the retail and hospitality sectors, which give so many young people their first jobs. Stop attacking farmers and the rural economy. Stop the madness of the Employment Rights Bill, which will make it harder than ever to start and build a business. We should be celebrating and rewarding drive, energy, aspiration and entrepreneurship, not undermining them. Secondly, come clean to the people of this country about the Government’s own uncertainty, conflicts and incompetence.”
“The CBI has calculated that the Government’s raid on inheritance tax will cost £1.25 billion more than it raises. The Chancellor has said: “I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.” Last month, she specifically ruled out an emergency Budget in the spring. The effect of these rising interest rates is to reduce fiscal headroom and make new tax rises or spending cuts very possible—indeed, some would say almost inevitable. We must wait to see whether that means emergency tax rises or an unexpected fiscal event in the spring, with a detailed investigation by the Office for Budget Responsibility. That also raises the question: how can the Government plan a spending review at all if they are not in control of the public finances?”
“Only this week we saw that long-term interest rates in the gilts market, as very well highlighted by the shadow Chancellor in this morning’s urgent question, have risen to their highest level since 1998, 27 years ago—that was before some Members of this House were born—reflecting severe investor worry about Labour’s spending plans and about increased UK vulnerability to increases in the national debt. The Government cannot blame that on the past. It is a straight judgment on their own credibility, and it is costing this country dearly every day. The problem is not just that the Government have damaged key parts of the economy with their Budget decisions; it is that the long-term effect of those decisions is so counterproductive.”
“They have had six happy months blaming everyone else; now they need to take responsibility and lead. We have seen how the Budget continues to have devastating effects, both on key sectors and more widely. Just a few weeks ago the National Institute of Economic and Social Research warned that the UK economy did not grow at all in the fourth quarter of last year. High street retailers have reported their worst sales decline since covid, both offline and online. Business confidence is at a four-year low. Employment continues to fall, and job vacancies are at their lowest for three years.”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, may I start by wishing you a very happy new year? I hope that all colleagues in the Chamber had a zestful and restful Christmas. I also pay tribute to those members of the House Service who were honoured in the recent honours list. The new year is always a time for new starts and fresh beginnings; a time when people step back, look at themselves in the mirror, pinch an inch or two, and perhaps make a few resolutions—lay off the pies, resist the siren call of the cheeseboard, spend less on self-indulgences and more on things that matter, take themselves in hand, and perhaps try to manage things a bit better. The Government might consider adopting these new year’s resolutions for themselves. After all, by any standards, their first six months in office have been pretty catastrophic.”
“My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a family connection with my constituency of Hereford and South Herefordshire. What he says is deeply troubling and distressing on so many different levels, and I would like to ask whether his conclusion is that there is some case in justice to consider this an unsafe verdict.”
“It was every bit the equal of Burgundy and Bordeaux, as Roger Bosworth, my predecessor as MP for Hereford in the 1659 Parliament, insisted, and it was the ideal remedy for smoothing away troubles. Bosworth was a medical doctor, so he well knew the life-enhancing benefits of Herefordshire cider. I think the lesson is clear: I doubt the plum pudding riots would have happened at all if the people of Canterbury had had Herefordshire cider to drink after the football. I only hope that the Chorley players were able to do the same after that hard-fought game on Saturday. Mr Speaker, to you, to the Clerks and the House staff, and to all our colleagues across these Benches and in the other House, I wish a very merry and Herefordshire-filled Christmas and a happy new year.”
“Perhaps the worst moment for this House was during the protectorate, when Parliament sat on Christmas day 1655, and Colonel John Desborough attempted to impose a decimation tax while many royalists were out sensibly celebrating the Christmas season. A punitive and partisan tax, and an unpopular, blundering Government up to various tricks and seeking to rush their business through the Commons while the House’s back was turned—how lucky we are that such a thing could never happen today. However, my personal favourite is 1659, when the supply of French wines was temporarily cut off, creating absolute mayhem in London and other cities across the country. What to do? There could be only one answer: Members of Parliament should drink Herefordshire cider.”
“This is the time of year when we think of friends and family, of our armed forces that keep us safe here and overseas, of those who care for others wherever they may be, and of the emergency services that protect us all the year round, but especially over the holiday period. Mr Speaker, I think you will know that, in relation to this House, Parliament’s own record is not absolutely unblemished when it comes to Christmas. Fuelled by puritan hostility to public celebration and unseemly revelling, the Long Parliament—Parliament, no less—outlawed the celebration of Christmas in the 1640s. People naturally reacted, notably with the plum pudding riots in Canterbury in 1647, which began with a football game, but ended up with a brawl. How very different from the results at the weekend.”
“Mr Speaker, may I associate myself very strongly with the remarks you have just made about hospices? You will recall that St Michael’s hospice was the topic of a recent discussion that we had at the Dispatch Box in business questions. Mr Speaker, I must confess that I feel a slight degree of trepidation and nervousness, because at the weekend I received two massively welcome Christmas presents with the result of the Manchester derby and—dare I say it?—the defeat of Chorley by Hereford in a tough, hard- fought game at Edgar Street. I remain worried that I will need all of your legendary reserves of Christmas loving kindness in order to mention this.”
“I would be very interested to know what the Leader of the House thinks on these issues, and how they will shape her approach to the conduct of future business in this House.”
“These are extraordinary omissions in what purports to be an inclusive, long-term reset for the Government. There are more fundamental questions to be addressed, too. The idea of a mission is a fashionable one in policy circles, but it implies a total commitment to the goal. How will that be reconciled with the obligation of the civil service, and the Prime Minister’s new efficiency tsar, to demonstrate short-term value for money? How will all this be reconciled with the Government’s intense desire to campaign aggressively against those they see as their political enemies, rather than recruiting them soberly to a political consensus that could provide a sustainable basis for these missions?”
“The plan for change is a revolutionary gospel indeed: honest about the poor performance of the previous Labour Government, realistic in not seeking to blame Governments for wider global events, seeking to adopt a longer-term approach and recognising the need to limit tax and spending. All we can hope now is that someone spreads this revolutionary gospel, in the Christmas spirit, to the rest of the Government. But I also have various concerns about the plan for change that I would like to put to the House. It barely mentions the crucial short-term issue—and long-term issue—of defence, highlighted once again this week by events in Syria, or the vital long-term issue of social care, which all parties concede has been inadequately handled over the past 30 years.”
“The Prime Minister says: “In 2010, the incoming government inherited public finances in desperate need of repair.” He is absolutely right: public finances in 2010 were in desperate need of repair. He also says that we need “a profound cultural shift away from a declinist mentality, which has become…comfortable with failure”, and again, I think he is absolutely right. Finally, and most notably, he says that “we cannot tax our way to prosperity or spend our way to better public services.” Not only that, but the Government have sensibly dropped their commitment to 100% clean energy by 2030, as Conservative Members have called for, and as I specifically highlighted only a couple of weeks ago.”
“A lot of media commentators have had fun with the Government’s blizzard of to-do lists, including their six first steps, six milestones, five national missions and three foundations, but I am afraid that they have missed the Christmas spirit of the thing—all we need now are policy announcements on turtle doves and partridges in pear trees to complete their new initiatives advent calendar. I jest, Mr Speaker. I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. I am not going to indulge in the easy mockery of the commentariat: on the contrary, I can report genuine signs of reality breaking through in the plan for change—something rarely seen in a document from this Government.”
“I think the whole House should welcome the fact that the Government now have a plan, only 14 years and seven months after they first started in opposition, and that their plan is to change direction. I would describe the plan for change as a fine, fat Herefordshire beef cow that has been inadequately fed with the Reform party’s favourite anti-methane feed supplement, Bovaer: it is a beast full of nutrition, but with a certain amount of unnecessary flatulence.”
“As Members will recall, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted at the time that the rise in national insurance would hit lower-wage and more labour-intensive parts of the economy hardest, and predicted that the Chancellor may need to raise taxes again soon. The Chancellor’s reaction, as she told the CBI, was: “I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.” We will see how long that promise lasts. Only this week, the Financial Times reported that hiring has fallen more sharply in the UK than in other major economies over the past year, including the US, France, Germany, Canada and Australia. Luckily, however, we now have the Government’s new plan for change.”
“What a marvellous time of year it is when I see the Christmas tree in New Palace Yard, and the trilling sounds of the parliamentary and Salvation Army choirs to boot. On a slightly more sober note, you will recall, Mr Speaker, that the story of this Government so far has been one of early scandal, a first reset and a delayed Budget, and now what we can expect to be a delayed spending review. We must hope that at some point the Government will get round to actually making policy. I am afraid that this week has brought further confirmation of the disastrous effects of the November Budget.”
“It is great to see that Christmas has come to the Palace of Westminster. I hope, Mr Speaker, that you enjoyed the Christmas fayre yesterday, and that you loaded up on goods from Frank’s Luxury Biscuits from Herefordshire just as heavily as I did—”
“It is made worse because the Leader of the House is responsible for parliamentary business and procedure, and should, one might think, set an example of openness. It is worse still for two further reasons: because she herself has so often called for transparency from Ministers, and because a failure to be accountable is itself a breach of the rules of this House, of the Nolan principles and of the ministerial code of conduct. That is quite a combination, so I ask her whether she plans to continue as she has done, or whether she will change this unfortunate habit and start to engage with the serious questions that I have been asking.”
“They have been beset by petty scandals from the beginning; they have destroyed business confidence through a Budget that is visibly unravelling before our eyes, and only this week, they have lost a Cabinet Minister to new revelations about a criminal conviction for fraud. It is little wonder that the Prime Minister wants a reset. The Leader of the House’s unwillingness to engage, and to recognise and respond to questions, is arguably more important than any aspect of policy, because it strikes at the heart of the very idea of our parliamentary democracy. It is a discourtesy—indeed, possibly even an insult—to you, Mr Speaker, to all our colleagues and their constituents, and to this House.”
“She could have said, “I agree with you.” She could have said, “I don’t know,” “I will look into it,” “I will reply to you,” “I will ask a ministerial colleague to investigate and respond,” or “I will come back to the House with a proper account,” but on no occasion has she bothered to give any kind of proper answer at all. Instead—and I fear the same will be true this week—the Leader of the House’s approach has been to change the subject and attack the previous Government, rather than defend the record of her Government, which is the whole point of these exchanges. Let us see what she says when she stands up shortly. If the Government had made a decent start, of course she might want to talk about that, but the truth is that the Government have made a dreadful start.”
“For the third time, I raised the question of Labour’s triple whammy in combining changes to national insurance rates and thresholds with changes to the minimum wage. This time, the Leader of the House did not simply duck the question and change the subject; she also gave me the benefit of a little homily on the duties of the Opposition. It is true that the duties of the Opposition are a topic on which, unlike the duties of Government, she has built up considerable expertise over more than a decade, but the real point is this: for a month now, I have been putting to the Leader of the House basic questions about the incompetence of this Government. Many different responses were open to her.”
“I am afraid that the Leader of the House’s response was to blame the previous Government, and to talk about employers who will pay no additional national insurance, a completely different group—quite irrelevant to the question asked. On 21 November, I again highlighted this problem, and got the same response: blame the last Government and change the subject. I also extended my concern about the Government’s incompetence to include their decision to bring the clean energy commitment forward from 2035 to 2030, and highlighted a vast array of public and official worries about whether this was either achievable or financially viable. In response, I am sorry to say, the Leader of the House again did not engage with either question, instead accusing me of political opportunism. Last week, we saw the same thing once more.”
“As you will know, the practice of seeking reasons and explanations for official actions, be they the passage of Bills or the raising of taxation, is not some useful add-on or afterthought; it is absolutely foundational to the whole idea of Parliament as a deliberative assembly, so I am sure that you will understand my disappointment that the Leader of the House has been so persistently unwilling to answer, or even address, the simple questions that I have put to her in recent weeks. On 14 November, I drew attention to the Government’s incompetence in combining at the same time three measures on national insurance and the minimum wage in a way that drastically raises the cost of hiring entry-level staff, and I asked for an assessment of the total impact of those measures.”
“And just in time for Small Business Saturday, too. I understand that the Prime Minister will deliver a speech later today setting out his plan for change. I must say, I am delighted—I am sure we all are—to hear that the Government are at last adopting a plan and are trying to change. As we have so often noted at business questions, the Government’s first five months have been a festival—no, a carnival, a supermarket sweep, a fill-your-boots, all-you-can-eat blunder-fest—of delay and incompetence. You, Mr Speaker, more than any Member of this House, will be aware that the effective functioning of Parliament rests on its ability to hold Ministers to account. That has been true since its origins in the 13th century, and arguably since even before that.”
“As for the Justice Secretary, she was attacked by none other than her own Labour predecessor Lord Falconer of Thoroton for imposing her views, but his lordship somehow missed that she was also making the argument that it was inappropriate in principle for the state to get involved in what many term “assisted suicide”. That too is yet another issue that has barely been discussed. I ask the right hon. Lady whether she shares my view that it is a tragedy that colleagues are being asked to vote without full and proper consideration of the vital issues I have mentioned.”
“Most profoundly of all, there is the question of what choice and dignity actually mean in different contexts. None of those matters is even mentioned in the dossier purporting to give the answers. Whatever one feels about the issue of assisted dying itself—as I say, I feel very pulled in both directions—this absence of debate, especially with so many new Members in the House, is a matter of the gravest public concern. As the House well knows, the Government themselves are all over the place on the issue. In asking for an assessment of the Bill’s likely impact on the NHS, the Health Secretary was doing exactly the right thing: preparing civil servants and clinicians for what could be a huge change and asking them to look at a crucial question that has not even been addressed, let alone properly answered.”
“All Members of Parliament were recently sent a dossier by the promoter of the Bill entitled, “Your questions answered”. Unfortunately, far from answering key questions, the dossier fails even to touch on a whole series of important issues. Those include the Bill’s impact on the medical profession and the relationship between medical staff and patients, its impact on the provision and regulation of the different drugs and drug cocktails required, the record to date and protocols to be used in case an initial attempt at assisted dying fails, and what the inevitable for-profit industry exploiting the new law will look like and how we should feel about it. As the senior judge Sir James Munby highlighted, there are a host of questions about involving the judiciary in the process and the balance of probabilities test for coercion.”
“In the words of the Health Secretary, no less, “I do not think that palliative care, end-of-life care in this country is in a condition yet where we are giving people the freedom to choose, without being coerced by the lack of support available.” That care is now being deliberately worsened by his own Chancellor. Personally, I feel strongly pulled in both directions by both sides, but one thing no one can be in any doubt about is that the Government have no business trying to rush this legislation through the House by proxy. The text of the Bill was published barely two weeks prior to our vote tomorrow. No impact assessment or legal issues analysis have been published. Far from public debate preceding legislation, legislation has preceded debate. That is completely the wrong way around. We can be perfectly clear about this.”
“Hospices in almost every constituency will be affected, and so are the interests of almost every colleague in this House. This disastrous outcome was clearly never intended by the Treasury. It is another completely unnecessary blunder with potentially tragic consequences. As with GPs, pharmacies and mental health and social care charities, no compensation whatsoever has been offered for this tax raid. When will the Government publish a proper impact assessment and explain why none has been offered? There is a direct link here to the issue of assisted dying.”
“St Michael’s supports hundreds of in-patients a year with end of life care, and thousands more as out-patients and with visits in the community. It has a dedicated staff, assisted by some 800 volunteers. This is extraordinary. I shudder to think what it would cost the state to provide that kind and quality of care—certainly more than £20 million a year. What has this Labour Budget done to St Michael’s hospice? The changes to national insurance alone will cost the hospice an extra £250,000 next year, but that is only part of it. At the same time, the Budget has directly and indirectly pushed up the wage bill by a further £450,000. That is £700,000 annually in extra costs—a vast amount for an organisation that offers incredible care, and actually saves the NHS £20 million a year.”
“I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing a very happy Thanksgiving day to all our American friends and family, and a happy big birthday today to the Clerk: the Joe Root of the parliamentary estate. Huge thanks to him for his stylish and expert first century—half-century, I should say! Mr Speaker, a man of your wide culture and extensive learning will doubtless be familiar with the film “Mad Max”. I am no expert, but the image that it conjures up of a desolate, chaotic landscape with wreckage strewn everywhere is the perfect metaphor for the Government’s recent Budget. Let us take hospices, for example. In Herefordshire, we are blessed to have the extraordinary St Michael’s hospice.”
“We have been here before with the three-day week of the 1970s, and the result was blackouts and energy rationing. Should we expect that again? This is the rub: power reveals. We are seeing not merely a lack of competence but an Energy Secretary who has still not made any statement on the NESO report that I mentioned. He is deliberately refusing to account for his actions to this House on this foundational matter, and he is holding the Commons in contempt. When can we expect a statement from the Energy Secretary on the NESO report? When will he be forced to come to the Dispatch Box to explain and defend this folly?”
“He will also need to ensure that the global price of carbon doubles or triples just to make the sums add up. That is before one considers the effects of unexpected inflation, skills shortages, dependency on foreign energy technologies and intermittency of supply. What could possibly go wrong? Meanwhile, the Energy Secretary’s plans for small modular reactors have been delayed while he plunges ahead with his plans to cut off gas turbines and leave us dangerously reliant on expensive foreign energy imports. Those plans are not simply heroic; they are fanciful. They are magical thinking. What is worse, they are likely to be ruinously expensive both for the taxpayer and for the electricity user. It is little wonder that top business and union leaders have come together to describe them as “just not feasible” and “impossible”.”
“The Energy Secretary is a modern Clark Kent, whose slightly bumbling, comedic exterior is merely a disguise concealing a range of astonishing superpowers. Think of what he will have to achieve if the UK is, as he promises, to have entirely carbon-free energy in just over five years’ time. He will have to build twice as many pylons and cables in those five years as we have built in the last 10. He will have to get all the transmission infrastructure built on time and reshape the planning rules, or the taxpayer will be forced to pay for wind turbines that stand idle. Like the Greek god Aeolus, this great baron of breeze will need to ensure that the winds blow and contract as much offshore wind capacity in the next two years as in the last six combined.”
“The Government have proclaimed their intention to make Britain a 100% clean energy producer by 2030. A couple of weeks ago, the new National Energy System Operator published a report on how that might be done. I must say that I am feeling a degree of embarrassment, as I had been under the impression that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero was a slightly clownish figure, unable to eat a bacon sandwich without causing an international incident and with a political style closely modelled on Wallace and Gromit, but actually I was quite wrong. In fact, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State may need to update his CV. I now realise that he is a heroic figure; the titan of transition. In fact, I will go further.”
“Well, I need hardly have bothered, because barely five days later, what did we find? A letter from Tesco, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, all the major supermarkets and many of the biggest names in the retail industry highlighting the Budget’s impact in forcing shop closures and job losses. The sad truth is that there is nothing surprising here. It was completely obvious to everyone except the Government that this unplanned triple whammy was likely to have this effect. I ask the Leader of the House again: will we see an analysis of its effects when the Finance Bill comes to the House next week or alongside the forthcoming National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill? Otherwise, I think we should turn our attention to energy.”
“I associate hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House with the comments made about Lord Prescott’s death. I am delighted to hear that the House administration is aiming to win the National Autistic Society’s autism friendly award. I know that all colleagues will want to join me in wishing the House team good luck with that. In last week’s episode of this long-running saga, I drew attention to the Government’s incompetence in having a Budget that managed to raise the rate of national insurance, lower the NI threshold and increase the minimum wage all at the same time. I described that as a “terrible blow” to the retail and hospitality sectors and asked if the Treasury would publish an assessment of the total effect of those measures before they came to the House.”
“I ask the Leader of the House this: we know what and who this Government are against, but what is this Government for?”