Sir Peregrine Messervy

Avatar: Cecil Parkinson Born on 1 September 1931, Stuart James Arthur Ingham is a British Labour Party politician and the Member of Parliament for Pontypridd since 1970. Ingham’s father was a general practitioner and his mother a district nurse. He was an only child. Ingham fulfilled his national service obligations in the British Army before attending The University College of Wales where he read international politics. Ingham went on to serve for ten years as an officer in the Welsh Guards. Elected to Parliament in 1970, Ingham was elected to the defence select committee in 1972. Following Labour’s election victory in October 1974, he was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Defence. He then became Minister for the Armed Forces in 1976. In 1979 he was deputy chairman of the Labour Party’s campaign committee for Wales. Between 1979 and 1983 Ingham was critical of the leadership of Michael Foot, and in 1981 was linked to a possible defection to the SDP: Ingham always denied that he had ever intended to leave the Labour Party. Ingham was elected to the NEC following Neil Kinnock’s selection as party leader in 1983, and served until the election of Mary Temple in 1986. Ingham is a confirmed bachelor having never married and borne no children.

Mr Speaker, I rise to make a brief statement in connection with the issue of reform in Her Majesty’s Prison Service. Mr Speaker, the events at HMP Wakefield last week threw into stark relief a number of issues within our prison system. After an extensive internal investigation and a thorough review of the facts at the level of the Cabinet, I can say with confidence that there are some clear and tangible steps the government can take and will take to prevent a repeat occurrence of such dangerous violence in prisons. Prison riots are a rarity, especially on the scale that we saw at Wakefield. Events at Wakefield last week were clearly influenced to a significant degree by the impact of the Westminster terror attacks, and the desire of prisoners to attack IRA suspects being held at the prison. It is not in itself unusual for terror suspects, as well as other classes of offender such as sex offenders, to be violently targeted by other prisoners: for this reason, safeguards are in place to keep such prisoners separate from the general population. At Wakefield last week, these safeguards failed due to human error. It is clear from the reports I have seen that this was not an issue of malice or gross negligence on the part of hardworking prison officers: it was a mistake which can be addressed through enhanced training and performance management practices. Those will be implemented immediately. But the riot at Wakefield was about more than just the presence of IRA suspects in that facility. I am relatively new to the role of Home Secretary, and very new to the realm of the prisons service. Through my discussions with counterparts across the service, I have learned of serious dissatisfaction on the part of many prisoners with the standards in which they are living. These grievances have festered for a long time, and spur men to violent means. There is also a clear issue of undermanning in our prisons. There are two streams of measures that the government will be implementing forthwith to tackle the root causes of the Wakefield riot. One stream can be best described as relating to “hard” measures which physically prevent riotous behaviour, which punish those responsible, which instil a greater degree of discipline in the prison population, and which separate terror suspects from the rest of the prison population. The second stream might be referred to as those “soft” measures designed to modernise and uplift living standards in prisons, to tackle the grievances that have been presented to me by prisoners, and to reduce the incentives for disorder. Today I can announce that the government is making available £750 million of funding for a comprehensive prison reform package. This is money that will fix our prison service and prevent the recurrence of the events of last week. It will fund the recruitment of 2,750 additional prison officers with enhanced training, and the opening of a new prison facility intended exclusively for housing terror suspects separately from the general criminal population. These measures will tackle the potent issue of undermanning in our prisons, and ensure that we are fulfilling our duty of care towards all prisoners. To instil discipline in prisons, we will particularly be looking to recruit former officers and regulars of the armed forces to work as prison officers: and drilling, supervised exercises and regimented daily timetables for prisoners will be implemented as standard. Prison establishments will be physically divided into smaller, secure, more manageable units which can be individually secured and policed. Prison officers will be encouraged to foster stronger interpersonal relationships with the prisoners within their unit, building trust and tackling resentment. There will be enhanced pastoral and chaplaincy services at all prisons, and every prisoner will have the right to speak to and petition his prison governor: governors themselves will have greater authority to manage the facilities for which they are responsible, and will be held accountable through individual performance compacts with the Home Office. We will extend access to visits, home leave and telephone calls wherever appropriate, and a new grievance procedure backed up by an independent complaints body will give prisoners the right to seek redress for alleged malpractice or discriminatory treatment on the part of prison officers or institutions. A new system of privileges, or rewards, and sanctions will be implemented, and a new criminal offence of prison mutiny will be created with the penalty of a custodial sentence of up to ten years. Every prisoner will have access to adequate sanitary facilities by no later than 1992, with “slopping out” to be eliminated completely by that date. I can also announce that Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons will be given an enhanced role in devising a curriculum of activity for prisoners, preventing idleness and instilling a sense of discipline and work ethic. Altogether, this £750 million investment in the prisons service represents a major effort to tackle the festering problems which created the conditions in which a riot such as that at Wakefield could occur. I am personally committed to the reform programme. To that end, HMP Wakefield will be the first prison to receive funding and instruction in connection with this agenda. Work will begin immediately, and I will invite the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee to tour HMP Wakefield with me once improvements are in place. I would further invite any Member of Parliament who wishes to examine any prison facility to write to me forthwith, and give my undertaking that I will do my utmost to facilitate timely visits which enable us to achieve the highest level of transparency in our reform agenda. Mr Speaker, the Daily Mail called upon me to fix our prisons. We start by admitting that they are broken. We move forward by knocking down the decrepit old structures and building anew from a solid foundation. I commend this statement to the House.

Mr Speaker, I rise in the House today to make an urgent statement regarding events at Her Majesty’s Prison Wakefield. As many in the House will be aware, HMP Wakefield is a maximum security prison in west Yorkshire housing Category A male prisoners. It is routinely used to hold suspects on remand for terrorist offences, and has a population of approximately 700 inmates. At 7.20pm yesterday, I was made aware of a prison-wide riot occurring at Wakefield. Preliminary findings suggest that the wider prison population, having become aware of the presence of five men suspected of involvement in the recent IRA attack on London in which 56 people died, conspired to create a riotous situation under cover of which these men could be attacked. At 7.30pm, the situation had deteriorated such that police officers were sent to the prison to provide reinforcements. By midnight this morning order had been restored at HMP Wakefield by a concerted effort of police and prison officers. I was informed that there had been several casualties, including the fatalities of the five men arrested in connection with the Westminster bombings. They had been badly beaten and in one case fingernails had been removed from one suspect. An internal investigation is now under way and for the foreseeable future an enhanced police presence has been ordered at HMP Wakefield. Prisoners identified as having caused or been involved in the riot will be separated and moved to different institutions. After enquiries are complete, the bodies of the five fatalities will be repatriated to the Republic of Ireland. The investigation will have to answer several key questions; namely why terror suspects were housed with the general prison population; why the prison service was unable to contain the rioting; and whether manpower levels at British prisons are sufficient to prevent a repeat occurrence. In the longer term, it is clear that our approach to prison security needs to be adjusted. I can announce that this year, we will begin construction of a dedicated facility to house those held on remand in connection with suspected terror offences. There will be announced at the budget funding for additional prison officers to man existing prisons. And I will be issuing a general memorandum mandating that, in the interim, terror suspects are held in solitary confinement separately from other prisoners under enhanced guard. We will also need to review the tactics available to prison officers to tackle disorder; and that work has already begun. It is clear that a prison riot on this scale will cause considerable public disquiet. However, I would like to remind the House that at no stage in yesterday’s events was there a tangible threat to the general public, nor any immediate risk of an escape. The work of our prison and police officers remains exemplary and to the highest standard in the tradition of service, and I have every confidence that their efforts continue and will continue to keep the public safe.

Sir Peregrine Anthony Archibald Messervy KCMG is a British Conservative Party politician and the Member of Parliament for Christchurch, formerly Christchurch & Lymington and prior to that Bournemouth East & Christchurch. Born on 5th February 1916, Peregrine was the third son of the Right Honourable The Lord Potton, the 11th Baron and of Potton in the County of Bedfordshire, at their Shortmead estate. His birth was complicated by parents’ relatively advanced age (his father was 55, his mother 43) and as a result he has suffered lifelong deafness in his left ear. Growing up at Shortmead, Peregrine developed a great love for grouse shooting and cricket. He attended Harrow School, where he excelled in Latin and Art and captained the cricket team, and subsequently read Classics at King’s College, the University of Cambridge. Graduating in 1937, the same year that his elder brother Aloysius acceded to the Barony upon their father’s demise, Peregrine attended Britannia Royal Naval College and was commissioned as a sub-lieutenant. He served on battleships throughout the second world war. At the war’s close Peregrine had attained the rank of Commander, as the First Officer of HMS Biter. He was said by associates to have “wished the war could have gone on a year longer, in order that [he] might Captain his own vessel.” Following his decommissioning, Peregrine took the civil service entrance examination and scored the highest marks in his cohort. He initially took up a post at the Admiralty, but in 1950 was transferred to the top secret High Explosive Research project responsible for developing Britain’s first nuclear bombs. In 1953 he entered into a romantic relationship with one of the secretaries attached to the project, Deborah Church, and they married the same year. They would bear four children; two boys born in 1954 and 1956, and twin girls born in 1957. Peregrine moved to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office following the conclusion of the HER project, where he worked until 1964, by which time he was Assistant Under Secretary with responsibility for Southern Rhodesia. In the same year he was made a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George in recognition of his services to the nation. He wrote two books, published in 1965 and 1966, on his time in the military and subsequent career in the civil service. Ahead of the general election in 1966, Peregrine, who had lived in Christchurch now for some twenty years, was approached about becoming the candidate contesting the seat of Bournemouth East & Christchurch on behalf of the Conservative Party. He agreed to do so, and was subsequently elected to the House of Commons. Throughout his early years in Parliament, Peregrine associated closely with his elder brother Aloysius Messervy, now Lord Potton, with the pair’s respective positions in the House of Commons and House of Lords enabling them together to win influence. Aloysius had served in the upper house since 1937. In 1968 Peregrine was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to William Whitelaw, then the Opposition Chief Whip, and in 1970 became a junior minister at the Northern Ireland office. In 1973 he was closely involved in formulating the Sunningdale Agreement. Following the Conservatives’ return to opposition in 1974, Peregrine became Opposition Chief Whip; he was then made Shadow Defence Secretary upon the election of Margaret Thatcher as Conservative Party leader, with Aloysius becoming Shadow Leader of the House of Lords. Following the Conservatives’ general election victory in 1979, Aloysius became Leader of the House of Lords and Peregrine was appointed Secretary of State for Defence. Aloysius died of a heart attack in 1981. On the occasion of the government’s controversial 1981 budget, Peregrine was one of several ministers who urged the Prime Minister to change course, being particularly perturbed by proposed defence cuts. He was persuaded to remain in the Cabinet and support the budget in exchange for guarantees that he would be allowed personally to handle negotiations with the United States on the acquisition of Trident II D-5 missiles, and that the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible be retained in service regardless of nascent proposals to decommission her. In 1982, Peregrine was the Defence Secretary during the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands. Although he had been the minister initially responsible, alongside Margaret Thatcher, for reducing the military presence in the vicinity of the islands prior to the invasion, Peregrine quickly changed tack and urged the Prime Minister to launch a counter-attack. He was said to be in favour at one stage of bombing the Argentine mainland. Peregrine subsequently played a key role in the victorious British response to the invasion, which secured him a good deal of personal popularity and contributed significantly to the party’s landslide victory in the 1983 general election. In 1984, another $1 billion cut to the defence budget was proposed. Emboldened by his success in the Falklands campaign and increasingly at odds with Thatcher regarding her handling of the miners’ strike, which had begun in earnest a week prior, Peregrine demanded that the cuts be cancelled. Refusing to yield, Thatcher informed Peregrine that he could either support her policy or resign. Storming out of a Cabinet meeting after the Prime Minister refused to discuss the issue further because it was not on the agenda, Peregrine tendered his resignation. On the backbenches, Peregrine and his nephew - himself now the Lord Potton - worked together to introduce a private member’s bill which would have restored capital punishment in England and Wales for certain offences. The bill was not selected for debate. Peregrine and his nephew later suffered a prominent falling out over the latter’s handling of the family estate, with Peregrine heard to describe the Baron as “a lout.” The Shortmead Estate was sold in its entirety to an American speculator in 1985. In October 1985 Peregrine published his third book, “Reflections on a Changing Britain,” which many saw as a form of personal manifesto setting out his vision for the future of Conservatism. Peregrine directly criticised Thatcherite economic policies for the first time in public, identifying unemployment as “the major crisis facing Britain,” and said that he resented the “new ethos of new money - all rights without responsibilities; all lavish living without paying dues.” He called upon the wealthy to exhibit a sense of “noblesse oblige,” and called for the restoration of “the honourable society” - which he opined would focus on support for the family unit, improvements in education and law and order, and a restoration of trust in politics. Peregrine identified the diminished stock of council housing as “a problem” and wrote that “Britain is at her strongest when everyone has his place.” In late 1985 Peregrine was criticised for comments he made at a drinks reception courtesy of the British American Tobacco company, where he said “I have smoked for over half a century and have the lungs of a competitive swimmer […] I find that cigarettes act as an expectorant, clear the chest, strengthen the voice and ward off cold. Perhaps there are associated risks […] but there are risks when I drive my car to the supermarket, and I have never known a cigarette smoker to kill a man in drunken stupor.”

Christchurch

Leader of the Opposition - James Manning Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Shadow First Secretary of State and Shadow Public Services Secretary - Harold Saxon Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer - Harold Symmons Shadow Foreign Secretary - James Bradwell Shadow Home Secretary & Opposition Chief Whip - Ali Khan Shadow Energy & Infrastructure Secretary - Sir Colin James Shadow Government & Communities Secretary - Penny Mordaunt (NPC Mac) Shadow Leader of the House of Commons - George Freeman

Mr Deputy Speaker, I’m sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he had seen the last of me. But like a dodgy kebab on the morning after the night before, I have risen up again from the political underbelly to give him some aches and pains. And may I congratulate the Chancellor, on a serious note, for the presentation of his first budget. I note with some pleasure that coming in at under 45 minutes, his speech in the House today makes history as the shortest budget speech since Benjamin Disraeli’s in 1867. I have always believed that brevity is the best friend of clarity; it is certainly the best friend of Labour Prime Ministers and Chancellors, and I can only hope that the government’s tenure in office will be similarly time-limited. To be serious for a moment, I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to be brief, for it gives the rest of us more time to examine his proposals: I will endeavour to be similarly concise in my own remarks. Mr Deputy Speaker, the headline features of this budget very much speak for themselves. The Chancellor proposes a £68.5 billion new public spending splurge, funded by a combination of £60.6 billion in new taxes and £8 billion in new borrowing. His proposals see the budget deficit increase in size for the first time since the financial crisis, both in real terms and as a proportion of GDP. His tax and spend bonanza includes an 11.1% real terms increase in the total value of income tax levied; a 14.1% increase in corporation tax; an incredible increase of over 50% in stamp duty receipts and an Earth-shattering nearly 70% increase in income from capital gains tax. With inflation standing at 3.1%, the real growth as an average across all forms of taxation stands at 6.21%. In other words, the value money in the pockets of families and businesses up and down the country is being eroded twice as quickly by government policies as it is by the normal process of increasing prices. The Chancellor’s decision to freeze the personal allowance will drag more working households into income tax by stealth, securing an extra £1.5 billion for the government’s coffers. And his broader income tax changes will see the family doctor, the train driver, the dentist… all pay thousands of pounds more in tax than they did under the Conservatives. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has styled himself this festive season as Father Christmas in a cheery suit of socialist red, distributing giveaways to the working people of the land. A truer reflection would be to personify him as the Grinch who stole Christmas: because he is stealing over £20 billion from Britain’s working families through his income tax hikes and his instigation of the highest top rate of tax Britain has seen since the 1970s. His tax raid continues when it comes to the businesses which employ our hardworking workforce and create economic growth. For this Chancellor intends to hit businesses with £9 billion in new taxes at just the time that this country should be embracing the opportunity of Brexit to welcome investors to these shores. His £6 billion hike in capital gains tax, partnered with the abolition of entrepreneur’s relief, is another major blow against investment and enterprise in Britain. It is little wonder, then, that the government’s own forecasts present a vision of anaemic economic growth over the next five years, with the result that both taxation and spending as a proportion of GDP will be dramatically higher in 2022 than in 2017. And the tax raid continues, with a tripling of stamp duty reserve tax; a further great barricade thrown up against the private sector investment which this country needs to thrive. All in all, Mr Deputy Speaker, the government’s £60 billion tax hike is worth nearly £2,000 per working adult in this country. The sums are eye-watering, and the effects are gut-wrenching. Investment down. Businesses struggling. Middle earners squeezed. Anaemic growth. A swelling state. And the promise of even higher taxes tomorrow. Truly, the government could not have created a budget more hostile to businesses and families if it had tried. But we expect nothing else from Labour, do we? It’s the same old story. Taxes - up. Borrowing - up. The deficit - up. Economic growth - down. Investment - down. Take home pay - down. The Chancellor’s credibility - down. The glut of wasteful spending intended to balloon the deficit and return Britain to where it was during the dark days of the financial crisis is bad enough. The massive hikes in taxation designed to bankrupt Britons are bad enough. But when you look at the spending decisions the Chancellor has made in detail, and what he intends to do - and not do - with the public’s money, the picture becomes even more bleak. He boasts of his National Transformation Fund, with its £200 billion price tag. But included in its parameters we find no allocation of funding for the retrofitting of high rise buildings with active fire suppression systems, agreed on by the government and the opposition just a few short months ago. That doesn’t matter to the Chancellor. He can’t find the money for that. But he can find the money to reopen railway lines that have been closed since the 1960s. If you’re a highly paid criminal barrister, you’ll benefit from the government’s £800 million spending boost for the courts. But if you live in fear of crime in your community, you’re out of luck: the Chancellor can’t find any money for crime and policing. If you’re a public sector consultant revelling in the fees you’ll get from advising on a massive reorganisation of the sector, you’ll be delighted by the government’s £13 billion “National Education Service.” But the Chancellor can’t find a penny extra to provide support to low income children and families in schools. If you’re a 16-18 year old pursuing training or an apprenticeship, there’s very little in this budget for you. But your tax payments will go on giving free university education to people who are, by and large, richer than you. The Chancellor has found an additional £1.3 billion to give away in foreign aid. But no real terms funding increase for the British armed forces. The examples go on and on. At every corner, at every turn, when the Chancellor has had the chance to invest in Britain, in the working people of this country, he has chosen instead to throw money at left-wing pet projects. And to do that, he has dramatically expanded the size of the state, the size of the deficit, the extent of the tax burden and the breadth of public spending. So let me talk about what the Chancellor could and should have done instead; indeed, what a Conservative government would do instead. If I was in the Chancellor’s place, and he in mine, we would be debating today and increase in the personal allowance to £12,000, with a commitment to increase it to £15,000 over five years. We would be debating a budget which saw the budget deficit fall below 3% of GDP, and the current budget deficit fall to just £7.4 billion - on track to be eliminated altogether in 2019/20. We would be debating a budget which kept corporation tax and capital gains tax down, and which cost the taxpayer altogether £30 billion less than under Labour’s plans. We would be discussing Conservative plans to more than halve the beer duty, supporting our hard-up pubs and publicans. And we would be looking at sustained and sustainable investment in public services, with the size of the state - expenditure as a proportion of GDP - continuing the slight downward trend which began in 2011 even as we invested an additional £30 billion into the economy. We would be talking about over £10 billion in investment in major capital projects this year, funded not by borrowing but by a 1% increase in the national insurance charged to the highest earners. We would be looking at real growth in taxation averaging out at 1.6% this year, six times smaller than under Labour. And our sustainable management of the economy would enable sustainable investment. £1.7 billion for the armed forces. A £600 million investment in crime and policing. £100 million for the Security Service. Nearly £3 billion in extra funding for mental health trusts; £3 billion for acute care and hospital trusts; £2 billion for primary care services and £500 million for dental and ophthalmic services. An £800 million boost to supporting low income children in schools. £2 billion for schools more broadly. And a commitment to nuclear power for 10 million homes, driving the green revolution and net zero at a net profit. The contrast between us couldn’t be clearer. This government has delivered a plan for eye-wateringly high taxes, high borrowing and high spending; the Chancellor today has announced a package designed to drive investment away and make Britain hostile to business. It is a plan to bankrupt Britain and bankrupt Britons. And when it comes to spending the massive sums the Chancellor is taxing and borrowing, he priorities vanity projects and left-wing fantasies over real initiatives aimed at helping the people most in need. I urge him now to reconsider. There is an alternative - a real alternative. At a time when we need to see the deficit falling, Labour has it going up. The Conservatives have a plan to get it down. While Labour’s plans see a swelling state, the Conservatives will shrink the state. While the Chancellor unveils billions of pounds in new taxes, we would keep taxes low. Whilst he drives business and enterprise into the ground, we would foster and nurture it. While he makes all the wrong choices, we stand ready to set course for growth. I urge the House and the nation to see this budget for what it is. I was asked in the media if I was trying to serve bangers and mash while the Chancellor took everyone out for lobster. But this government’s economic policy is not a seafood surprise: it’s a vat of treacle, designed to look appealing but certain to give you a stomach ache. There are now two very different economic visions on offer in Britain: on the one hand, a vision of ever increasing taxes, borrowing and spending; an ever more clumsy state; an ever more indebted and inefficient economy. On the other, a country in which hardworking people keep more of their own money, in which investment is sustainable and sustained, and in which we get our debts under control and go for economic growth. I urge the House to walk with me in categorically rejecting this budget of false promise from a false fiscal prophet. Mr Deputy Speaker: This budget must fail - or Britain will fail.

I have said before that we need to find a new way in the Conservative Party. That there has to be a new policy platform for the 2020s, and not one born out of the 1970s or 80s. The die-hard socialism of the Labour left, which looks to turn back the clock with recklessly high spending, high taxes, a blockade against innovation and a revival of the legacy of industrial disharmony, must be opposed stringently. But just as that is the wrong path for Britain, Thatcherite neoliberalism on steroids is not the right path either. The Conservative Party must recognise that a successful government is one which governs in the present and for the future; not one which clings to past glories. And I admire Mrs Thatcher greatly. I have a portrait of her in my office. But her reforms, her legacy, were of their time. The challenges Britain faces today are myriad and different. They cannot be solved by dramatically shrinking the size of the state again. And a programme of ever-lower taxes, ever-lower spending and ever-smaller government is a fantasy. It is as much a fantasy as its diametric opponent, espoused by the government today: ever-higher taxes, ever-higher spending and ever-bigger government. Sluggish productivity growth, barriers to entry, a skills, and underpowered regions are the challenges of today; the rise of technology the challenge of the future. And the private sector will have many of the solutions to these problems. I will never fail to advocate for liberating businesses to innovate, invest and grow. But the state has a role to play too. That role should be nimble, efficient, effective and limited, yes. But it is there. Only the public sector has the capital and risk appetite to fund major infrastructure projects of the kind this country needs. In Britain, the state has a monopoly on healthcare and education. And whilst free markets, competitive economies and business growth raise wages, reduce poverty and deliver opportunity, the government has a duty to deploy taxpayer’s money effectively to support those who are poor or disadvantaged from birth; those who are left behind. There is a rich tradition in the Conservative Party, from the time of Disraeli indeed, of believing in a state which acts as party to a social contract. There is such a thing as society. And whilst it is individuals, families and businesses who make it up, it is the government which guarantees the social contract by fulfilling its obligation to deliver the best for its people. The social contract means that where the private sector cannot adequately deliver a social good, the government should act to do so. It means that for big infrastructure projects which will better connect our country and deliver growth and opportunity across all the corners of the United Kingdom, the government must put up the money to make them happen. It means that for public services upon which all our people depend, the government must make sure that they are adequately resourced and properly managed. And it means that where the productive capacity of our people and our economy can be enhanced by the actions of the government, through improving education or health outcomes, the government has a duty so to act. I am a conservative. I believe in the lowest possible taxes, and a competitive tax regime which attracts investment from around the world. I believe in the free market, in an open and competitive economy, in free trade and in the ownership of property. I believe in fiscal responsibility, in reducing our debts and balancing the books. And I believe that taxpayers’ money should be spent carefully, sparingly and accountably. But I am also a unionist. I believe in a single British nation and people. And I believe that all of those people, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever they do, deserve the best chance possible to thrive. I believe in utilising the levers of government policy to deliver an opportunity agenda, and a national story in which every man has his place. This is not unconservative. It is precisely the kind of patriotic, communitarian approach that the modern Conservative Party needs to espouse. It requires bold thinking and sometimes radicalism. It requires straight talking and compromise. It requires an acknowledgement that we cannot always do everything we would like at once. But I believe that you can have the best of both worlds. You can have thriving business, a growing economy, blossoming wealth creation, alongside fairness, equal opportunity and equity - a stake in British society for all. I don’t mind at all if the rich get richer, as long as the poor get richer too. As long as we all get richer: richer in our environmental inheritance; richer in the quality of our public services; richer in our pride and our capacity to do good around the world; and richer, yes, because the government has taken steps to put Britain back at the forefront of global innovation and growth. David Cameron spoke of a Big Society. Theresa May spoke of a country that worked for everyone. Dylan Macmillan wants us to “walk together.” And he is right. When our country succeeds, we should all succeed: and our country will only succeed when all our people do. So the next Conservative government will scrap the benefits freeze and uprate welfare payments in line with inflation. It will fund £140 billion in major capital infrastructure projects over 20 years, paid for by a 1% rise in national insurance contributions for those earning more than £40,000, and delivering growth and opportunity in every corner of our country. It will raise the personal allowance to £15,000 over five years, taking the lowest paid out of tax altogether. It will deliver real-terms spending increases in health and education, as well as systemic reform, to deliver the improved outcomes we all want to see. It will deliver critical investment in clean energy, unleash the power of the electric vehicle revolution, and redouble commitments to improving energy efficiency for homes to drive our transition to net zero at a net profit. It will abide by our longstanding policy of no rises in income tax. It will maintain all existing tax reliefs for businesses and families. It will eliminate the current budget deficit within three years, halving it in year one, and get the structural deficit down to sustainable levels within five. It will cut taxes where possible, whilst realising higher revenues through stronger economic performance. And it will deliver a Brexit deal which enables us to take control of our destiny, giving Britain the freedom to flourish with better regulation, a more competitive economy and a commitment to free trade. And it will recognise that a strong economy and a strong society combined are what makes a strong nation. This is the Conservatives’ New Deal for Britain. A focus on levelling up, not down. A commitment to the strong public services that we all rely on. A commitment to fair taxes which leave the least well-off, better off. A commitment to fiscal prudence and sustainable finances. And a commitment, above all, to build in Britain an opportunity society: one where nothing and noone can hold anyone back. A stake in society for all. A strong economy for each. A vision defined by the future, not the past. All of it made possible by unleashing the potential of this island people, as we move beyond Brexit and into the next decade. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, May I commend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing forward the government’s first piece of legislation in this Parliamentary term. The Prime Minister may be nowhere to be seen; the government may be unable to lead on the big issues; and the Labour Party may be completely unable to set the agenda; but after only three months, we have a government bill before the House. At the current rate of progress, we will see another such bill in the new year. I’m sure the whole House joins me in rejoicing at that news. Mr Speaker, the bill before the House today is clearly well-intentioned and on a serious note I would like to commend the Chancellor for his personal commitment to improving the lot of workers in this country. It is disappointing that he gives with one hand and takes with another; committing to abolish the married tax allowance, refusing to rule out a £1.3 billion tax hike on farmers; and refusing to adopt the Conservative policy of lifting minimum wage workers out of income tax altogether. But he has presented a bill today which is aimed at improving the economic security of some of society’s most vulnerable people. Intentions aside, however, this bill does leave some serious questions unanswered. I will endeavour to look at each section of this legislation in turn, and raise constructive questions and concerns where they arise. I turn first to provisions on the minimum wage, and let me be clear that my party is always in favour of raising wages for hardworking Britons. It is my party that first introduced the national living wage; it is my party that almost doubled the personal allowance; and it is my party which oversaw in government a dramatic decline in unemployment to give more families than ever the security of a well-paying job. Efforts to raise the minimum wage are commendable, provided they are affordable for businesses. I therefore ask the Chancellor: was the increase in the living wage to £10 an hour by 2020 recommended by the Low Pay Commission? Is the Chancellor confident that it can be afforded by employers? I note with mixed feelings the government’s decision to equalise the minimum wage rates for all over-18s. Whilst we all surely agree in principle that people should receive the same rate of pay for performing the same tasks, it is a fact self-evident that those aged 18 have less work experience than those aged 25, and are often less intrinsically appealing to employers than those older. Is the Chancellor confident that raising the minimum wage for 18-21 year olds will not result in a situation where people in those age groups are disproportionately overlooked for employment opportunities in favour of more experienced peers? I would also ask, Mr Speaker, why the government is not making any commitment to raise the minimum wage for 16-18 year olds, or indeed the apprentice rate. Whilst we know that 16-18 year olds cannot vote for the Labour Party, and that apprentices represent an often-neglected non-graduate constituency, I am concerned that the government has chosen to pursue a dramatic rise in the minimum wage which specifically excludes these groups. Can the Chancellor elucidate his reasoning on this matter? Turning to section two of the bill, I am inclined to ask what effect tougher restrictions on the classification of employees would have on businesses such as Uber, Just Eat or AirTask, which are not generally recognised as employers and yet which do subject those paid by them to a degree of supervision and control? My grave concern is that the government’s proposed changes to the law around contracted and self-employment will render these businesses unviable in the United Kingdom, and thus drive investment, innovation and opportunity away from these shores. Mr Speaker, a proposed complete ban on zero-hour contracts excepting very specific exemptions runs the risk of decimating sectors of the economy such as healthcare, with social care in particular relying heavily on “bank” staff with no fixed hours. I would also submit that many people in Britain choose to be employed on a zero-hours basis, giving them more flexibility and freedom to choose their own working arrangements. Would the Chancellor recognise as friendly an amendment to scrap any proposed ban on zero-hours contract, and replace it with an inalienable right for any zero-hours employee to request and be granted a contract including set working hours, in line with Conservative policy? I have no particular issues with section 4 of the bill, or section 5. With regards to section 6, my question would be how the government intends to enforce restrictions on activities taking place overseas? I look forward to the Chancellor’s customarily candid responses to my concerns.

*James Manning speaks in Peterhead, one of the largest fishing communities in Scotland within a constituency which voted 61% for Leave. Behind his podium is a furled Union Jack, and next to it a Scottish Saltire in dark blue.* “Ladies and gentlemen, The opportunity ahead of Britain as a result of Brexit is a great one, with huge potential rewards. That is why I backed Brexit in 2016, and why I have continued to urge Brexiteers to keep making the case for Brexit. The referendum was won with a vote to Leave; but with many in the country still not behind that programme, we must all continue to fight the battle as if it is yet to be won; that battle of ideas which sets out exactly what the benefits are and how we can make the most of them, which can carry people - even those who voted Remain - with us. If Britain squanders the enormous potential of Brexit, limited economic growth could become a permanent fixture of our economy, tied into a European regulatory apparatus which is not responding competitively to the challenges of the modern economic reality. After Brexit, Britain’s regulatory arrangements do not need not to be identical to the EU’s, even if they achieve the same outcomes. Regulating our own economy can increase growth, wealth creation and wealth redistribution, allow the UK do other trade deals which lower the cost of goods and services, and and create leverage in other negotiations. Independence; true independence, in political, trade and regulatory terms is not an ideological proposition, but the only means by which the majority of the tangible benefits of Brexit can be realised. At the core of the Conservative vision for Brexit is the pursuit of a competitive, open, liberal and thriving UK economy. Unilateral changes in domestic and trade policy could eliminate EU regulations which are harmful to growth, and support competitive markets and a more competitive environment in such diverse fields as digital, financial services, and agriculture. I have already spoken about the need to eliminate tariffs, quotas and non-tariff barriers on the importation of products that the UK does not or cannot produce. This is of particular relevance to the agricultural sector, and in the context of potential short-term disruption to supply chains following Brexit, where a ‘closed’ approach to imports of products that cannot be produced in the UK such as bananas or avocados raises prices for consumers. In fisheries policy, restoring UK control over our waters and addressing barriers to entry for new fishermen will help to revive a once world-leading seafood industry. And as we leave the single market and the customs union, eliminating the free movement of workers within the EU and putting an end to passport discrimination, we can introduce a balanced and efficient framework for the movement of workers from around the world, putting recognition of the economic and social benefits and costs of immigration at its heart. A key failure of the government thus far is to fail to commit to seeking bilateral agreements with others concurrently during talks with the EU. We should seek to replicate the EU’s existing agreements with third countries, and look at developing trade partnerships with major economies such as the United States and India with which the EU does not currently have any agreements. Negotiating mutual recognition of different regulatory environments with the European Union will be challenging, but it is essential: tying Britain to future EU regulations over which we will have no say would not only be politically egregious, but economically disastrous. Demonstrating the strong nascence of an independent trading policy will only strengthen our hand in talks with Brussels. If the EU does not cooperate with serious British proposals, the government should be prepared to adopt a more aggressive stand. Should Europe refuse to recognise UK regulations following Brexit, action could be taken at the World Trade Organisation to penalise violations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade, and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Let me reiterate that regulatory autonomy is a key ‘red line’ for the Conservative Party in Brexit talks. But that autonomy does not mean divergence in all areas immediately, nor does it mean a deregulatory agenda to carve away workers’ rights and environmental protections. I am quite clear that there should be no derogation of those rights and protections after Brexit, even if different regulations are used to achieve the same or better results. But continued harmonisation of regulations themselves as opposed to alignment of their goals would fail to deliver the benefits of leaving the EU. Britain can and should put forward a constructive offer of mutual recognition, where the UK would immediately recognise EU regulation, standards, and conformity assessments, meaning institutional competition for the UK, commercial competition from EU imports, and avoidance of unnecessary trade barriers on imports. A key concern for all of us if contemplating a Britain outside of the single market and the customs union is the unique situation in Northern Ireland. It is pivotal that travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland remains open and free; that the Belfast Agreement is upheld; and that Northern Ireland’s position as an intrinsic component of the United Kingdom, every inch as much Britain and British as Scotland, England and Wales, is maintained. But there is no reason why leaving the single market and customs union should mean a ‘hard border’ on the British Isles; indeed, the British government should commit unilaterally to imposing no hard border infrastructure whatever the result of negotiations, leaving the ball in the EU’s court to be constructive or destructive. Bringing together international best practices, and new technologies, can create a border with minimal friction. Such solutions are already in place between the United States and Canada, and between Sweden, which is in the EU, and Norway, which is not. These existing arrangements are not friction-free: but a British-Irish arrangement would go further, be even more high-tech, and be developed to minimise friction even more than these existing arrangements. Standards such as coordinated border management as well as trusted trader and trusted traveller programs can significantly reduce compliance requirements and make borders almost frictionless. Customs and other border control practices that keep the border open, such as release before clearance, deferred duty payments and clearance away from the border, also help keep the border free of traffic and speed up or even remove the need for processing. Technologies such as automatic number plate recognition, enhanced drivers’ licenses, barcode or RFID scanning, and the use of smartphone apps can all help. There are challenges associated with delivering a Brexit which ensures true political and economic independence; but that independence is what the British people voted for, and what makes possible the realisation of Brexit gains possible. The government must rise to the challenge and commit firmly to the measures I have outlined today; any alternative which sees the UK locked into either the single market or the customs union, or both, will be vociferously opposed by me and by the Conservative Party. The problem with the government’s Brexit policy is that whilst it is much acclaimed as highly pragmatic, it is pragmatic precisely because it sets out no clear goals, no red lines, and no vision for what the end state should look like. Harry West and now Annelise Dodds say only that they will negotiate ‘the best deal possible,’ and refuse to spell out what they want such a deal to look like. Their lack of an end goal risks delivering a ‘Bureaucrat’s Brexit,’ where we get a fudged deal in which the EU exploits a lack of clear UK negotiating objectives to foist upon us an agreement which is disadvantageous to our economy. We still don’t know if Labour wants in or out of the single market or the customs union; they simply won’t say. So whilst the government accuses me of chasing unicorns, let me be clear. Our proposals are clear, our vision is well-defined, and whilst we accept that we may not be able to get everything we want, we are at least able to clearly define the kind of deal that we want to reach. I support the government’s proposals to guarantee the rights of EU citizens and to underpin labour and environmental protections in UK law; but I want them to set out a clear vision for Britain after Brexit. I hope that’s what I’ve done today. Thank you.”

Mr Speaker, May I pay tribute to Her Majesty The Queen for her delivery of the Throne Speech. For 65 years She has served this nation and a Commonwealth of over 2 billion people around the world; She is our longest-reigning monarch, and it is poignant to remember that all political passions - and careers - are fleeting compared to the continuity of service, devotion to duty and commitment to Her people that Her Majesty embodies. The Throne Speech makes history today not just because of the remarkable woman who, without fear of favour, was called upon once again to read Her government’s programme. It makes history because it is the most radically left-wing agenda for government this country has seen in forty years. It is the agenda of a Labour Party led by a man who quoted communist revolutionaries on the steps of Downing Street; whose Chancellor is renowned as one of the biggest marxists in Britain. It is an agenda which makes bold promises and bold claims. But if what we have seen today marks the start of a new chapter in British politics, we must surely all be alarmed by the prose that is to be written. Because this is not an agenda for economic stability and security. It is not an agenda for sustainable social change. It is not an agenda to move Britain forwards: rather, it is an agenda for chaos. Chaos and instability in our economy. Chaos and uncertainty amongst our workforce. Chaos and concern in the financial markets. Chaos and decline in our international standing. Chaos in every area of government policy. The Prime Minister has stood at the despatch box and defended his agenda for chaos by quoting statistics and asserting the end of austerity. But he has today unveiled £100 billion worth of unfunded spending commitments, which together would require either taxes or borrowing to rise to their highest level since the war. Amongst those unfunded spending pledges, a National Education Service which puts all the emphasis on structures over standards, likely to cost £17 billion a year, and with no clear statement of what benefit this would actually deliver for children. A commitment to net zero by 2040 which will require pensioners to rip out their fully functional boilers and replace them with heat pumps, and which will cost the taxpayer a trillion pounds in the long term. The government proposes to institute a National Care Service at a cost of £30.5 billion, with working-class taxpayers footing the bill so that millionaire pensioners like Lord Sugar can receive free catered social care. The government proposes to spend £11.3 billion on local authority funding, but makes no statement about how that money is to be raised or spent. And for public sector workers, who already earn 13% more than their private sector equivalents per hour on average, the government proposes an uncosted £6 billion pay hike. The total cost of the government’s borrowing bonanza of programmes announced in the Throne Speech is over £100 billion, this year and every year. To fund this, the government would need to either double income tax, costing the average worker thousands of pounds, or raise the annual budget deficit to nearly 10% of GDP. This would be the largest peacetime deficit in Britain’s history. It seems that Labour never learns: you cannot tax and borrow your way into prosperity. You need to pay for what you want to spend. Today’s speech, I say to the House, is a recipe for a repeat performance of 2008: but a thousand times worse. And this would be a crisis all of the government’s own making. But the agenda for chaos doesn’t stop at excessive, unfunded spending on dubious priorities. The government has today announced plans to repeal the Trade Union Act and roll out sectoral collective bargaining: the biggest explosion in trade union power since the era of the winter of discontent, the three-day week, the bodies going unburied and the rubbish piling up in the streets. It’s no wonder that the government would commit to such a policy. Because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the man now in charge of this country’s economy, was hand-picked for his Parliamentary seat by Len McLuskey himself - a marxist, radical trade union leader dedicated to the politics of a bygone age, who last year described claims of anti-semitism within the Labour Party as a smear and who was investigated by the police in 2013 amidst claims that his union had rigged the selection in Falkirk West. And the return of overwhelming trade union power, and the imposition of sectoral collective bargaining, quite apart from ballooning the cost of administration in the public sector, would bring Britain back to its knees. Pay disputes, strikes, industrial action, work to rule: an uncompetitive economy in which international businesses will not want to invest. Let me share with the House a vision for Britain in 2022 under this Labour government. By 2022, the fund its £100 billion spending bonanza, this government will either have doubled income tax or raised the budget deficit to its highest ever peacetime level as a share of GDP. The UK’s creditworthiness will have nosedived. Borrowing will have become more expensive, and the taxpayer will be footing the bill for higher debt interest payments. The pound will have slumped to dramatically low levels as a result of collapsing confidence, necessitating a rise in interest rates which will collapse economic growth. Resurgent trade unions led by the likes of the Chancellor’s mentor Len McCluskey will be pushing public services into near constant pay disputes and strikes, forcing inflation higher as the public sector pay bill balloons out of control. Families will be out of pocket by thousands as they are forced to abide by the government’s radical net zero policies. Investment will have collapsed. The government will be spending tens of billions of pounds every year in funding free social care for millionaires and on an education reform agenda which will do nothing to improve standards. A confused, worst-of-both-world Brexits will have been implemented, with the government simultaneously promising to wrench Britain out of the single market but retain all of its rules. The minimum wage will have risen in line only with inflation, leaving workers less well off than they were five years beforehand. And flexibility in the workplace will have been curtailed. If this sounds dramatic, it’s because it is. It’s also the truth. It is a dramatic realisation of a dramatically bad policy agenda for Britain. What Labour’s agenda for chaos means is higher taxes, higher borrowing, higher prices and lower wages. It means unfunded spending commitments which will bankrupt Britain, and misguided reform initiatives which will cost the taxpayer dearly. It means the most radically left-wing government anywhere in Europe, and in Britain for over forty years. As Labour winds back the clock to an era of economic regression, social uncertainty and industrial discontent, people in this country will grow to see more and more that there is a true alternative in the Conservative Party, and in my right honourable friend the member for Bedfordshire North East as a new Prime Minister. That alternative is fiscal responsibility, fairer and lower taxes, sustainable investment in infrastructure and public services and a long-term plan for prosperity. The Conservative agenda is an opportunity agenda which stands in stark contrast to Labour’s agenda for chaos. The Prime Minister stands at the head of the most radical government this country has seen in recent memory. His plan is one that will spell disaster for British businesses and British workers. He dresses up his agenda for chaos with the language of “the many, not the few.” In so doing, he is already drawing a distinction in our society between the worthy and the unworthy: those who subscribe to his radical socialist worldview, and those who do not. His is the politics of envy, ours the politics of opportunity. His is the economics of uncertainty, ours the economics of prosperity. His is the social agenda of regression, ours the social agenda of progress. His plan is as ill-thought-out and flimsy as his speech to the nation when first appointed Prime Minister; our plan, our alternative, is a programme for a better tomorrow. This Throne Speech means misery for the many and satisfaction only for the Prime Minister’s few supporters. I urge the government now to change course, abandon ship and let the adults take charge of the wheel. For Britain under this plan will become a sinking ship, and it will once again be Britain’s hardworking taxpayers who are forced to swim to shore.

“Ladies and gentlemen, Thank you for coming today and joining me here at the University of Cambridge, my own alma mater and one of the finest universities in the world. Founded in 1209, before even Magna Carta, by scholars fleeing Oxford, this University has long been a beacon of British innovation and expertise. Oxford and Cambridge together are ranked as amongst the five best universities in the world; the cities which they inhabit are widely regarded as having some of the highest qualities of life in Britain. And the Oxford-Cambridge Arc adds over £90 billion in value to the UK economy. I have chosen this fine venue to make my first speech as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer for two reasons; first, so that I may speak to some of the students of the Cambridge Union Society of which I myself was a member 17 years ago. Second, because Cambridge, and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, forms a key component of Conservative Party economic planning as we pursue a path back into government for ourselves, and a path into prosperity for the country. I can announce today that the next Conservative government will fully fund construction of the East-West Rail project, and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway; a total of £9 billion in investment over ten years. We will pursue an increase of the arc’s contribution to the economy to £250 billion: an additional £163 billion driving growth every year. Because improving and investing in infrastructure is central to our new platform for government. This Conservative Party, under Dylan Macmillan’s leadership, is seeking to forge a new economic consensus: recognising the flaws of Labour’s diet of socialist, command economics, high taxes and borrowing, which stifle innovation and growth and drive up debt; and recognising as well the flaws of Thatcherism when applied in the modern age - that the private sector cannot flourish without active support from the government. Our platform represents a new way, a third way, a conservatism focused on delivering three things in harmony: one, fairer and lower taxes. Two, a falling budget deficit and fiscal responsibility. And three, investment in public services and infrastructure to ensure that our schools and hospitals remain world-leading, and that our businesses and entrepreneurs remain world-beating. It is the role of the government to lay the foundations for a stronger economy and a stronger society - cutting the tax burden, investing in the critical infrastructure that makes business growth possible, supporting public services which keep our people healthy, educated and cared for from the cradle to the grave, and driving innovation, reform and growth across all sectors. Our philosophy is the rejection of Malthusian doomerism; and an embrace of the untapped potential of Britain and Britons, which can be liberated by a government which is both committed firmly to fiscal responsibility and spending within our means and to delivering the capital backing for major improvements in our standard of living where the private sector cannot. The global financial crisis has rewritten the rules of economics, and a third way is dawning. The flaw in the postwar consensus was that governments in countries such as Britaiin tried to inflate demand for goods and services through dramatic expansion of the public sector, lax monetary policy and overpowered, belligerent trade unions. The result was that inflation spiralled out of control, the nation was crippled by industrial disharmony, and inefficient state-controlled industries failed to compete effectively in the international arena. The flaw in the Thatcherite consensus is that the government moves from one extreme to the other; stepping aside altogether, and failing to invest in critical infrastructure. The result is a nation overly dependent on a narrowly specialised industry, with parts of the country falling behind and the nation as a whole vulnerable to market shocks. The British government must adopt a new and more active role in the economy - not through direct state control of industry or through manipulating interest rates to drive economic expansion, but through making available the capital that private investors cannot or will not: levelling up the country and delivering the enhancements in infrastructure and public services which enable the economy to grow. This is fundamentally a supply-side proposition: a new Conservative government would not interfere, over-regulate or over-tax private businesses and individuals. It would not attempt to take control of the natural cycles of the free market economy, and it would not diminish the role of free enterprise and free trade. It would, however, build up the supply of capital and the foundations in critical infrastructure which create business and trade opportunities. It is in the centre that elections are won; where people are carried with you; and where reason triumphs over ideology. I am not, and have never been, an ideologue; I prioritise the practical, the doable, that which works. But whilst Dylan and I believe in governing from the centre - indeed, what I have called the radical centre - I have always believed that the centre itself can move. It can be subject to influence, it can be brought to reflect our values. That is a gradual process. But I do not seek to govern from the centre in spite of being a Conservative; rather I believe that the centre-ground in this country, the majority political view, is aligned at its core with Conservative values. I am not a traditional conservative, it is true. And whilst Sir Winston Churchill and Baroness Thatcher are two of my political heroes, their achievements have to be contextualised within the time at which they served. Our new priorities as Conservatives, to invest in stronger public services and modern critical infrastructure, taken alongside our commitment to cut taxes and reduce waste, should not be viewed as an expansion of the state. Rather, they are a recalibration of the state: nimble, efficient, and focused on the things it needs to do, and can do, rather than wasting energy on things that it cannot and should not. The new Conservative vision for Britain requires that we remain true to our core values whilst embracing the reality of a changing world. We as Conservatives can continue to reduce the tax burden; but we most do so in a way that defends the interests of the lowest paid and the working class. We must not do so at the expense of public services. And where we stand for fiscal responsibility, getting the deficit down and managing our debts, we must do so through a primarily growth-driven strategy: eschewing the pressures from either side either to cut to the bone or borrow from the sky. As Conservatives in the centre-ground of British politics, our platform must be one that priorities the interests of the many. And if that sounds like a stolen soundbite from the Labour Party, let me emphasise one crucial difference: whilst the government draws a distinction between the many and the few, the only distinction I draw is between economic growth and social progress, and economic and social decline. The latter is what is on offer with a Labour-led government dedicated to taxing, borrowing, nationalising. The former is our platform, and it is a platform that will take everyone along with us. It is the platform to build, as Theresa May might have said, a country that works for everyone. I would extend that mantra: our task is to build a country that works for everyone, and where everyone’s work is rewarded. Dylan has already announced that the next Conservative government will raise the income tax personal allowance to £15,000 per annum, lifting millions of people out of tax altogether. Under our proposals, a full-time worker on the minimum wage would pay no income tax whatsoever. And for the average earner, our proposed tax reforms would represent a saving of over £800 a year. The next Conservative government will also abolish the personal allowance taper, terminating a fiscal anomaly which puts many moderate earners on an excessive marginal rate, and which we know from experience disincentivises people like NHS GPs and consultants from picking up extra shifts. In its first year in office, the next Conservative government would more than halve the current account deficit. We would do this by making rational decisions and finding ways to save money, whilst depending upon growth-driving policies to increase the size of the economy and tax receipts. The Taxpayers’ Alliance has identified £16 billion in annual savings to be made by centralising and coordinating public sector procurement and outsourcing under John Manzoni at the Cabinet Office, and a further £3 billion in savings by bringing public sector annual leave and sickness into line with figures in the private sector. We would trim the fat further by freezing the central administration budget. But there would be no further cuts to public services on the frontline. Indeed, I can pledge today that in the Conservative response to what we assume will be a Labour-led emergency budget this year, the Conservatives will promise real terms funding increases for the NHS, for schools, for law and order and for defence. We would commit to raise all benefits in line with inflation, and freeze prescription fees and rail fares. On top of that, we would finance over £12 billion of investment in critical infrastructure programmes this year - including the start of work on East-West Rail and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway - to get our economy moving. We will produce a comprehensive solution to the social care problem, ensuring that noone is ever again forced to sell their home to pay for care. And we will pay for every penny of that investment by ensuring that the current budget deficit is more than halved in a single year, and that the overall budget deficit falls as a proportion of GDP. We would balance the current account by 2019, and use a surplus to fund further tax cuts and public services enhancements. This is a plan to put Britain on a path to prosperity. It is a plan to put Britain on The Right Track. And it stands in start contrast to Labour’s agenda for chaos: £100 billion in unfunded spending commitments; abolishing the Low Pay Commission and reducing the rate of increase in the minimum wage; raising borrowing, raising taxes, raising prices and lowering wages; nationalising the railways; forcing pensioners to rip out their boilers in pursuit of a Green New Deal which will cost £1 trillion over 23 years; all led by a Prime Minister who quoted Communist revolutionaries on the steps of Downing Street and a Chancellor who is renowned in Westminster circles as a marxist figurehead for the far-left. The choice in Britain today is clear. A Conservative commitment to fairer, lower taxes; fiscal responsibility and paying off our debts; sound, sustainable investment in infrastructure and public services; a plan to put Britain on The Right Track… or Labour’s agenda for chaos, which will see us all out of pocket and our country out of luck. I urge the British people to stand with the Conservatives as we say it’s time to think again. As Labour winds the clocks backwards in a tribute act to the 1970s, with industrial disharmony, accelerating inflation and ballooning debts, we the Conservatives have the plan to move Britain forwards into a fairer and more prosperous future. It’s The Right Track or the wrong turning: and James McCrimmon’s SatNav is taking us all for a bumpy ride. Thank you very much.”

James Edward David Manning was born on 3rd December 1967, the product of a union between Derrick George Solomon Manning and Elizabeth Mary Annabelle Knight. The couple were unmarried, had a tumultuous relationship, and were of different social strata; Derrick was from an impoverished background and working as a casual labourer. Elizabeth, by contrast, was came from a relatively upper-middle class background: indeed, she was distantly related to the Kitsons, Barons of Airedale; in her family had been prominent liberals and unitarians; a Mayor of Helmsley and Officer of the Most Excellent order of the British Empire; a knighted civil servant and prominent figure in the British Empire League; and an assortment of figures who in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had been involved in political campaigning to various degrees, primarily as proponents of “Imperial Federation” and home rule. Her great grandfather had been the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary. Irrespective of past glories, Elizabeth’s own branch of the family, though clinging to middle class pretensions, was neither especially wealthy nor prominent. In any case, her death in labour left the infant James Manning bereft of a mother and her influence. Derrick Manning’s subsequent descent into self-flagellatory depression, substance abuse, petty crime and illness left him in no fit state to pick up the slack. Thus it was into the care of a maternal great-uncle, the police constable George Knight, that the young James was entrusted. Growing up in Bath in a modest but painstakingly well-kept home, Manning’s youth was defined by his great uncle’s obsession with discipline, propriety and status. George was given to enforcing a rigid regime of early morning rises, cold showers, conservative meals and rigorous exercise. Knight had, prior to his career in the police service, been an officer of the Royal Air Force: innately protective of his self-perceived status as a member of the “gentleman’s class,” and enthusiastic for his great nephew to earn the same such standing, he required standards of discipline and maturity that led Manning to develop beyond his years. By his tenth birthday, the young Manning could recite classical poetry fluently in English and Latin; had a reasonable grasp of French; was a keen rugby player and cricketer; an excellent shooter; a devoted member of the local Church of England congregation and choir; and earned pocket money by polishing the shoes and pressing the uniforms of Knight’s fellow officers. It was when Manning was eleven that the family, such as it was, moved to Sutton in south London, where he attended Wilson’s School - a successful grammar school for boys. Manning struggled at first, facing intense bullying. He was studious but unpopular, being passed over for the captainship of the cricket team “despite being by far the best player” and only being allowed to play as a winger on the rugby pitch by virtue of his great uncle’s intervention. The expense of living in the capital had reduced the family’s condition to living in a single unheated room, as Knight - by now retired - drew on his pension. What his great uncle surely saw as a matter of profound shame was the primary reason for Manning’s victimisation by his predominantly well-off peers, though he fought hard to fit in: he had eschewed his native west country accent, adopting perfect received pronunciation, was strong academically, well groomed and dressed, and sufficiently well fed at least to have entered the heavyweight league in the district boxing championships. Manning passed his O Levels with flying colours, making clear his intention to attend his school’s sixth form college and set forth on the path to university. In the summer immediately following his graduation from compulsory secondary education, however, Manning was struck by tragedy: his great uncle died of cancer, having kept his diagnosis a secret. Manning was at once devastated and liberated. He was taken in to live with a family friend. He completed his sixth form studies with excellent grades against all expectations, amidst a maelstrom of late nights, heavy drinking, partying and sexual promiscuity. By the age of 18 Manning was widely held to be responsible for the pregnancies of two older women. A seminal influence in Manning’s life - his English literature teacher, the Scotsman Donald McKidd, encouraged his star pupil to seek pupillage at Oxbridge. To McKidd’s surprise and dismay, Manning did not do so. He took up a job as a butcher’s apprentice, and seated above the shop he purchased a small flat: within six months could single-handedly strip an animal carcass to the bone. Wanting to see more of the world, and believing hat his chances of doing so would be best enhanced by his enlisting in the armed forces, Manning signed up to join the British Army in 1987 and was sent to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst where he trained as an officer. He served for thirteen years in the Royal Artillery, leaving the Army with the rank of Major. He remains a reservist. Manning has spoken of his great love and affection for the armed forces, calling his time in the Army “the first time in [his] life that [he] truly fitted in.” During his service, Manning met the French-Australian model and fashion stylist Chloé Loubet. The couple married within three months of meeting. The couple would have four children, two daughters and two sons, in addition to Manning’s three children by previous relationships. The couple would divorce in 2005. After leaving the army in 2000, Manning did finally attend the University of Cambridge - reading classics at King’s College - and then went on to study a second degree in politics, philosophy and economics at the London School of Economics. Teaming up with his friend Ben Merchant, a New Zealander and serial technology investor, Manning developed UPark, an online marketplace which allows the owners of private land and property to rent out space for parking by motorists and cyclists, in 2005. The service was piloted in Cambridge and was a success, and launched worldwide in January 2006. Manning described the service as “a quiet revolution in how we think of space in cities and large towns,” and even touted the app as a technologically-driven alternative to “pay and display” systems in traditional dedicated car parks. However, Manning’s growing political ambitions led him to sell his shares in the fledgling company to Merchant for £11 million in 2010. The sale was probably a mistake: by 2017, the company was one of Britain’s largest-growing private technology companies with 6 million worldwide users and a valuation of £60 million. Ahead of the 2010 general election, Manning fought a fiercely contested campaign for the Conservative Party’s nomination to stand in the constituency of Winchester: he had earlier stood in Bath in 2005. Manning spoke and wrote at length about his vision for the future of the Conservative Party, expressing a view that “the very word ‘conservative’… no longer adequately represents us, and is indeed anathema to much of the country.” Manning proposed that the party rebrand to emphasise the “Unionist” part of its formal title. He spoke extensively of the need for the party to campaign and govern from the centre ground, calling for a synthesis of traditional conservative ideas with progressive policies. After a hard-fought campaign, Manning was selected narrowly to contest the seat ahead of a traditionalist opponent. At the 2010 general election Manning was elected to the House of Commons as Member of Parliament for Winchester. Following the Conservatives’ entry into government he was appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence in 2011. In 2013 Manning became an assistant government whip. He was then rapidly promoted in the wider Cabinet reshuffle of 2014 to succeed Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Education. Manning was criticised for appointing Tony Sewell, later Tony Sewell CBE, as his special adviser: in 2006, Sewell had said that boys were being failed by schools because lessons had become too "feminised". In 2014 Manning appeared on the BBC television programme “Who Do You Think You Are,” which uncovered his maternal links to the Barons of Airedale and his family’s role in the unitarian community, the British Empire League, and liberal politics of the 19th century. The programme was also able to uncover evidence about his paternal lineage, revealing to Manning for the first time that his father, in his fifties by the time of James’ birth, had served on submarines during the second world war and been awarded the Victoria Cross. Manning followed the appearance with a seminal yet controversial speech delivered to the Conservative Friends of India group, discussing British history and the British Empire. Manning said he was “hugely proud to be British,” but said that he acknowledged “great atrocities committed by Britain against communities in India and other colonised parts of the world.” However, he also claimed that “the British Empire was not uniquely evil, nor was it uniquely malevolent or neglectful towards its colonies […] whilst we all today, with the benefit of modern understanding, reject and resent colonialism, it is prudent to acknowledge that in many cases life under British rule was better than life under the rule of other colonial empires pursuing similar practices… and Britain’s decolonisation process was pretty peaceful and willing compared to many.” He said that “all developed nations have dark smears across the pages of their history; but Britons of all colours and creeds should balance critique and sorrow for those stains with drawing pride from the positive achievements of Britain, and indeed the British Empire. History is nuanced: it is the same sovereign state which at one stage played the biggest role in the transatlantic slave trade which later did more than any other country on Earth to put a stop to it. Students of history need to be able to assess these things dispassionately, as far as possible, and with an eye for historical context.” It was noted in the media after the speech that Manning is a personal friend of Dr. Zareer Masani, a historian of Indian origin who writes with a largely positive view about the British Raj. In the same speech, Manning addressed immigration into the UK, saying: “I am unashamedly pro-immigration, which has been seminal in the foundation of a British identity for thousands of years: immigration does not diminish, but rather enhances, our cultural heritage.” Elaborating, Manning claimed that: “since the Romans invaded from modern-day Italy; the Anglo-Saxon tribes from modern-day Germany; the Norman French, upon whose foundations the modern British state is laid […] that quintessentially British meal, fish and chips, originates in the kitchens of eastern European Jews living in London. Many of our biggest cities, especially in the north, are full of Irish heritage. The Royal Family, until it changed its family name in 1917, was openly Germanic. The arrival of Caribbean settlers in the 1960s heralded the birth of the Notting Hill Carnival. Indians in the 1970s brought curry, now a beloved national dish, to this country. Modern-day Eastern Europeans make up a disproportionate number of our doctors and nurses. Britain is, truthfully, a nation of immigrants.” Manning joked: “the British Isles are home to the highest concentration of ginger people anywhere in the world - that’s a Celtic trait, so I was here long before most of you.” He concluded somewhat wryly: “the British nation, of which I am by the way profoundly proud, could not reasonably expect to rule over a quarter of the world’s people and raise them under the British flag, and then later tell them that they are not welcome in the mother country.” Following concerns from business leaders that children were leaving school without good teamwork skills, Manning stated that character development was as important as academic achievement. In December 2014, he announced £3.5 million of funding to promote the building of "grit" and "resilience" amongst students. Some schemes were said to be likely to involve ex-servicemen teaching pupils – particularly those with behaviour problems – the importance of discipline, in a model very familiar to Manning himself. Privately, Manning was said to be a proponent of expanding school choice, particularly with the advent of new grammar schools, though the suggestion was not adopted as government policy. Ahead of the 2015 general election, and speaking at a meeting of the “Bright Blue” Conservative think tank, Manning said Conservatives would have to send out an optimistic message and not just "the language of hate" if they were to win the next general election. His comments were thought to show concern at right-wing backbenchers' criticisms of Cameron on immigration and welfare. Manning announced in the same speech that he planned for all schools to become academies by 2022. Reports surfaced in the press that he had lobbied for a dramatic increase in per-pupil funding for schools ahead of the 2016 budget, and threatened to resign if it was not delivered: government sources denied the rumour. In 2016, Manning supported the campaign for Britain to leave the European Union, and was a prominent political backer of the “BeLeave” campaign targeted at young voters and run by the future commentator Darren Grimes. There was some speculation that a rift had formed between Manning and the Prime Minister over education policy, with Manning demanding more funding and a more radical approach to school choice, and it was widely expected that Manning would be dropped from the Cabinet in a future reshuffle: some suggested that his decision to back Brexit was a rebuke to the Remain-supporting government. Following the referendum, Manning initially advocated a “Norway model” of Brexit, becoming associated with Lord Owens’ “Norway for Now” proposals. He had, during the referendum campaign, spoken in favour of the UK joining the European Free Trade Association, but later admitted that “continued membership of the single market in that form [did] not seem to be compatible with people’s wishes.” Manning was moved out of the Department for Education and lost his Cabinet seat when he was appointed Minister for the Cabinet Office in 2016 by incoming Prime Minister Theresa May, with a new remit to pursue IT reform across the civil service. One of his innovations included introducing the single cross-Whitehall estate access pass. He was also responsible for launching the cross-government ROSA IT system for collaboration on SECRET material. He joked that a large part of his work involved “wrenching ministers and officials away from their five-year-old Blackberries,” and though he was not successful in unifying IT procurement and protocol across the entire government, he did express pride in successfully converting the Cabinet Office and 10 Downing Street to what he called “a more modern set-up.” Manning was an enthusiastic proponent of centralising government procurement and outsourcing, claiming that up to £25 billion could be saved “if administrators put their heads together.” Manning regarded the 2017 general election campaign as “a disaster” and was said after the event to have been warning privately for weeks that the Conservatives would not secure a majority. He reiterated his call for the Conservatives to “change or die” following the election. Speaking to the Tory Reform Group, he said that the party needed to find “a middle way between the socialist view of the Labour Party and the Thatcherite consensus of the last forty years, which was instrumental in Britain’s success in the 1980s […] but is a half-century old programme which does not address the challenges and opportunities we face in the here and now.” Manning claimed to be working on the production of a policy document entitled “the New Unionist Manifesto” which would elucidate his vision for an economic and social agenda which he described as loosely modelled on German “Rhine Capitalism,” but later admitted that the project had “taken a back seat to ongoing political realities.” [b]Personal Life[/b] Manning divorced his first wife in 2005, and married his second, Abigail, in 2012. He has seven children; four by his first wife, and three by previous partners born during his early adulthood. He lives in the medieval market town of Bishop’s Waltham when not working in London and owns a “small flat” in Pimlico. Manning speaks French, German and Russian as well as English, and is fluent in classical Latin and Greek. He is currently studying Mandarin. He enjoys playing and watching cricket, rugby union and tennis; he is also an avid fan of Formula One motor racing. He enjoys painting with oils, mostly landscapes, though he claims he “isn’t very good.” Manning is passionate about aviation and in 2003 wrote to the then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, urging him to step in to prevent the retirement of Concorde and/or procure an airframe for government use. He is a self-made millionaire, with most of his wealth gained through the £11 million sale of his share of UPark in 2010. Manning said that he “doesn’t really spend money on anything except clothes,” pointing out that whilst he purchases tailored suits, he drives a 1990s Rover 800 which has been in his possession for twenty years, lives in a “modest and rather dilapidated house,” and “uses the same Smith’s watch from the 1960s that my great-uncle wore as a police constable.” Manning is a practising member of the Church of England, though he describes himself as Anglo-Catholic. He admitted publicly in 2013 to having “dabbled” in same-sex relationships in his youth, revealing the anecdote while confirming his support for same-sex marriage. Manning said that there were “unique challenges” associated with being LGBT in the military, and particularly in the army: he said there were “some ideals for soldiers in terms of masculinity - which are in one way very necessary to the meat and gravy of what we have to do - that can also harmful.” Manning revealed in 2017 that he takes prescription antidepressants and has undergone therapy to come to terms with “certain periods of darkness in [his] life.” He was featured in GQ magazine in the run-up to the 2015 election, his slim-fitting Gieves & Hawkes tailored suits with distinctive low gorges, wide bellied lapels, ticket pockets, roped sleeve-heads and pleated and cuffed trousers drawing particular praise. Manning joked that he had “sort of created [his] own house style” and said “one thing I’d like to do, when there’s more money to spend, is create some sort of fund for kids reaching adulthood - boys and girls - to get themselves suited and booted […] you know, some smart clothes for interviews and to really give them some self-confidence.” Manning joked that he had wanted to grow a moustache during late 2014, but had had the idea “vetoed by Number 10.” [B]Political Character (notes for admins)[/b] Manning has been described as “so wet he’s drowning” and accused of “scarcely disguising the fact that he’s a Lib Dem” by opponents within the Conservative Party. He is seen as a bit of a maverick, with speculation rampant that he had a major falling out with David Cameron ahead of the EU referendum and that this was a factor in his choosing to support Brexit. Another criticism of Manning is that he is a self-publicist: eagerly doing the media rounds as often as possible. However, his tenures at the Department for Education and the Cabinet Office were generally seen as positive and successful. He is recognised as a good communicator, but known for being a strong “big picture vision” thinker and weaker on detail. He is quite popular with Young Conservatives, among whom he has a reasonable following, but very unpopular with right-wing Conservative MPs. His relationships with civil servants have generally been good. Manning associates mainly with the Cameroon and Maybot factions of the Conservative Party, and has good relationships with Parliamentarians from other parties too. [i]Private Eye[/i] is prone to making sardonic references to the fact that he is not involved in the lives of his first two children, yet has publicly said that children “need two loving parents.” For some unknown reason Manning demands positively frigid temperatures in his offices, once drawing the ire of DfE civil servants by asking for the central heating to be set “absolutely no higher than 19 degrees.” He responded: “I’m a Tory, so probably cold-blooded.”

Winchester - please change my username to James Manning!

James David Winston Banning is a British-Vincentian Conservative Party politician and the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham. Born to a Vincentian father and a British mother in Kingstown on 27 October 1969 - the very same day that the British government relinquished control over Saint Vincent’s internal affairs - Banning was named after James Herman Banning, the first black aviator to fly coast-to-coast across the United States. His middle names were taken from two of Britain’s wartime leaders; David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. In 1973 Banning’s family relocated to Sutton in London, where Banning went on to attend Wilson’s School - a popular and successful grammar school in the local area. Banning’s parents were by no means wealthy themselves, but his education was supported through private tuition paid for by a maternal uncle - one of his only maternal relatives who had not shunned his white British mother’s marriage to a black man from the Caribbean - and he went on to read History & Politics at the University of Durham. Following his graduation, Banning took up a post as an office junior at the headquarters of Marconi Electronic Systems. For the next seven years Banning slowly climbed the ranks at Marconi, ending his career with the company as a project manager. Pursuing a second degree in computer science at the University of Bath, and standing unsuccessfully on behalf of the Conservative Party in the 2001 general election for the constituency of Bath following a “shock” selection, Banning started his own cyber-security firm - CleanSweep Ltd. - with friend, programmer and cryptologist Destiny Babangida. Styling themselves as the “big bad black boys of cryptography,” Banning and Babangida worked together for the next seven years, eventually basing their offices in Cheltenham close to the headquarters of GCHQ, with whom they did some contracting work. The pair were featured on the front page of an edition of WIRED magazine in 2008. In 2010 Banning sold his shares in the company and again stood for Parliament on behalf of the Conservative Party, this time in Cheltenham - again unsuccessfully. In the same year he founded iStays, an online marketplace for lodging. He sold the business for £5 million a year later, which he says is the “biggest regret of [his] life” - in 2012 under new leadership the company raised £100 million in funding, and by 2015 was estimated to be worth billions. iStays primarily competes with other similar services such as AirBnB and Vrbo. In 2015 Banning stood once again on behalf of the Conservative Party in Cheltenham. This time he won the seat, and entered the House of Commons for the first time. In 2016 he became a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. In 2018 he moved to take up a similar role at International Trade. When Boris Johnson became Prime Minister in 2019, Banning briefly occupied a junior position at the Cabinet Office before moving to the Department for Health & Social Care during the pandemic, where he was responsible for the development of the NHS Covid-19 app and contact tracing system. He served as Financial Secretary to the Treasury under William Croft, working closely with then Chancellor Michael Marshall. In late 2022, Banning was widely understood to be a key supporter of the Marshall campaign for the premiership. Banning is married with three children. He is a practising member of the Church of England. Since 2002 he has been an officer in the Army Reserves (formerly the Territorial Army) currently holding the substantive rank of Major. His wife, Gwendolyn Barr, is a Welsh-born former model who now works as an events coordinator for the London fashion house Alexander McQueen. His eldest son, Dagleish, was President of the Oxford Union whilst studying at the University of Oxford during the academic year 2021-22.

Mr Speaker, With your permission, I would like to make a statement to the House in my capacity as Chairman of the Monkeypox Response Taskforce. Mr Speaker, the ongoing Monkeypox outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern. The virus spreads most commonly through direct skin-to-skin contact; it is not a sexually transmitted infection, but the evidence is clear that the individuals currently most susceptible to infection are young and middle-aged men who have sex with men, who have sexual contact with new or multiple partners. However the disease can affect anyone; is by no means limited to men who have sex with men; and the government is very clear that the LGBT community should not face stigmatisation as a result of the outbreak. In infections prior to the current outbreak, the rate of death was between 1 and 3 percent. In the majority of people, symptoms are mild and do not require hospital treatment: particularly vulnerable are children and the immunocompromised. Everyone needs to be aware of the symptoms of Monkeypox: a fever a week or two after exposure, a rash, and lesions that last for up to four weeks before crusting and falling away. Some people will exhibit large numbers of lesions; others may experience only a single lesion, perhaps in the mouth or on the genitals. The government’s advice is that anyone who believes they may have been exposed to Monkeypox, or who believes they may have Monkeypox, should contact their GP and get tested, refrain from sex and intimate contact, and should not share bedding, towels or clothing with other people. In addressing the outbreak, the government has to make difficult choices. I can confirm today that the government has made available £25 million in funding to procure 1,400,000 vaccines by the end of next year. Current stocks stand at around 20,000, with another 80,000 to be delivered in January. We of course would like to have more doses available much more quickly, but we are constrained by practical limitations on the vaccine’s manufacturing. We have made the decision to exclusively order the JYNNEOS vaccine manufactured by Bavarian Nordic; the main alternative, ACAM2000, is not safe for people with certain medical conditions such as HIV and is associated with severe side effects. JYNNEOS is a two-dose vaccine; two jabs are needed to ensure immunity. The government, considering the availability of doses and the risk of increasing transmission, has to make difficult decisions about to whom it offers vaccinations. Until January, we can fully vaccinate only 10,000 people; thereafter we can vaccinate an additional 40,000, and in a year’s time 700,000. There are no easy options. On the one hand, we can prioritise the most clinically vulnerable. But that may not limit general transmission, which could mean that the number of cases increases exponentially and risks overwhelming the NHS. On the other hand, we can prioritise the groups most at-risk of contracting and spreading the virus: men who have sex with multiple male partners, or attend ‘sex on premises’ venues. This may cut off the transmission cycle and limit overall case numbers; but it is unclear how willing people will be to come forwards, how the risk level of different individuals can be objectively assessed, and how many individuals this criteria might apply to. After taking extensive medical and scientific advice, much of which is in the realms of hypotheses, and with many experts expressing different view, the government is choosing to take a blended approach. A first and second dose of the JYNNEOS vaccine will be offered to anyone who is clinically vulnerable, and anyone in a healthcare setting who is caring or will be caring for someone infected with Monkeypox. A first dose only at this time will be offered to men who have sex with multiple male partners, and people who have already had close contact with someone who is confirmed to be infected with Monkeypox. Second doses for these groups will be offered from January, and within 12 months we will have the capacity to offer both jabs to 700,000 people. Our approach has two strands: one, to protect the most vulnerable and prevent the spread of the virus in healthcare settings. Two, to attempt to cut off transmission by immunising the people most at-risk of catching or spreading the virus. The government’s general advice to all citizens remains the same: be aware of the symptoms of Monkeypox and do not engage in close contact with somebody who may have the virus; if you yourself may have the virus, contact your doctor to get tested and avoid close contact with others. Wash your hands regularly with soap and water. Do not share bedding, towels or clothes. I am acutely conscious of the fact that LGBT people in this country are already a vulnerable group, and deeply concerned with ensuring that whilst we acknowledge the medical and scientific advice, we are not stigmatising or castigating men who have sex with men, or indeed men who have sex with multiple male partners. It is important to get the balance right between protecting public health and securing civil liberties. So the government is not issuing official advice to refrain from or limit sex and intimate contact generally, nor are we taking measures to restrict the operations of premises catering for sexual encounters, and I want to be abundantly clear that the vaccine will be available on a walk-in basis at local GP surgeries so that patients will not need to discuss their sexual orientation or behaviours with medical staff. Aside from the clinically vulnerable, we are trusting individuals to self-select for vaccination. And I am working at the moment to ensure that young males who may be under the age of 18 are able to get the vaccine if they are eligible without needing the consent of a parent or guardian. I must emphasise that we all have a role to play in stopping the spread, through promoting awareness if nothing else. I would be grateful if all honourable and right honourable members could do their bit in the coming days to share information from the NHS, the government and the UK Health Security Agency regarding Monkeypox across a range of channels. Mr Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.

Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 1, subsection 1 of the Import, Export & Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows: (1) The importation into, or exportation from, the United Kingdom, or the carriage coastwise or the shipment as ships’ stores, of goods manufactured or sold by: A) The Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. B) The Shenzhen Zhixin New Information Technology Co., Ltd. is henceforth prohibited.

Mr Speaker, With your permission I would make a brief statement to the House regarding ongoing events in the English Channel. Nearly 5,000 illegal migrants have crossed the English Channel from France in order to claim asylum in the United Kingdom this year. In doing so they risk their own lives and the lives of others, put funding into the hands of people smugglers who are often organised criminals involved in other nefarious dealings, undermine the integrity of the UK border and attempt to enter the United Kingdom illegally. The Government’s position is abundantly clear: migrants travelling from France are not fleeing persecution or indeed any tangible threat. They are already residing in a safe country. Thus at the moment of their departing across the Channel, they become in effect economic migrants: and their attempts to enter the UK illegally should be resisted. This morning, the Home Office received intelligence that as many as forty small boats were preparing to cross the channel in the most significant crossing yet this year. After meeting with Cabinet colleagues and securing the cooperation of the Ministry of Defence, the government ordered the Commander UK Strike Force to implement new tactics as part of Operation Isotrope. From today, orders have been given that boats attempting to cross the Channel illegally can be intercepted and pushed back by the Royal Navy. Today, loudhailers and water hoses - as well as physical blocking techniques - were used to prevent the crossing of a total of 27 small vessels. All 27, each carrying 20 or 30 migrants, were turned around in international waters and escorted back to the boundary with French waters. This action is nothing more or less than what the British public expects. For too long the security of our borders has been under threat by persistent small boat crossings. And there is a humanitarian consideration here too: for as long as the migrants and the people smugglers know they have a chance of success, they will continue to attempt a crossing which leads too many to their deaths. By taking a firm approach and ensuring the failure of crossing attempts, we can disincentivise further such attempts and spread the word throughout Calais that the treacherous voyage across the Channel is no longer a viable route to claiming asylum in the UK. I am confident that our actions today are fully compliant with Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights; there was no expulsion of migrants, as the boats were turned before they reached British seas. And I am also confident that we are compliant with the principle of non-refoulement, given that Britain and the international community regard France as a safe country where individuals are not in danger of facing persecution. Mr Speaker, the British people have cried out time and time again for strong borders and for the government to put an end to the Channel crossings crisis. This government is delivering on those priorities. The Royal Navy will continue to conduct pushback operations, and I anticipate the same high level of success in the future that we have seen today. The government is delivering the right way forward: and Britain is feeling the benefit. I commend this statement to the House.

Policy Exchange Event “Ladies and gentlemen, The pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the role of public services in Britain today. Our national story has become woven into the fabric of institutions such as the NHS and the education system, the BBC and the Church of England. It is unpopular, nay even blasphemous, to propose substantial reform in any of these areas. They are sacred cows, and the closest thing the British people have - apart, perhaps, from the Church - to a religion. But reform we must, and reform as Conservatives should really be our clarion call. A strong economy, thriving public services, homes to live in and more of your money in your pocket. These are the foundation stones of the fight for the next general election. In education, the most significant reform possible is to establish a National Education Service within which sits every school in the country, as an academy receiving its funding directly from the Service. Academy trusts should be given the power to merge, demerge and take one another over where necessary. Parents should be given the absolute right to choose any school they deem appropriate within the state sector for their child - with the proviso that they provide transportation if it is out or catchment, of course! - so that the popular, successful, outstanding schools are enabled to thrive and so that those which are failing can be easily taken over and revitalised by their outstanding counterparts. In effect, a free market in schooling: state-owned, state-funded and always free at the point of use. But a market in which parents choose the schools and the schools level each other up. I would also propose a greater diversification of the schools portfolio. We should have schools which focus on academic subjects; we should have schools which specialise in supporting those who might otherwise be left behind; we should have schools which train their pupils in woodwork and carpentry and schools which teach their students how to parent, make a home, care for others, sew. I am not proposing a return to the old ways of grammars and secondary moderns, where one’s life chances were determined at eleven: rather, I am proposing that within the model of a free market in schooling, academies should be encouraged to diversify, develop unique offers to students, and offer unique results. One school might focus on competitive sport, another on the arts. And I would expand the pupil premium by £1,000 per student, but make an element of it available to parents to aid them in selecting the school they prefer and, if necessary, transporting their child to it. The NHS can be reformed along similar lines. Always, we hear the Labour Party carp and crow about privatisation in the NHS. The truth is that, overwhelmingly and since its inception, many NHS services are already privately provided. GP surgeries are all private institutions contracted by the NHS to serve patients free of charge. I would go one step further, and take clinical commissioning groups out of the state sector. They would still receive state funding per patient; but beyond a basket of essential care, they would be free to offer the services and treatments that they chose. They would not be geographically restricted and would be free to compete across borders. The private and charitable sectors could also provide CCG services, again funded by the state on a per-patient basis. And patients would get the choice - a free choice - of to which commissioning group they wished to subscribe. They could choose to match with a provider with a specialism in cancer care; or another which leads in alternative therapies. They could sign up for a provider who guarantees shorter waiting lists, or one which is rated most highly for clinical outcomes. In short, it would be a patient’s market: within the control of the end user, and, as always, free at the point of use. And as we reform the public sector, we must reform the private sector too. Cronyism and corporatism are the enemies of a functioning free market economy as much as they are the enemies of socialism. And so this Conservative government should step forward to abolish restrictive practices, tackle the problem of insider trading, boost worker representation on company boards and eliminate anti-competitive practice. None of this can be achieved overnight, but it can be achieved ofer the course of a Parliamentary term. And that is what we have before us. “Reform” is not a word which sits easily alongside the word “conservative.” But it should be. For as we fund our essential services and support our businesses in the wake of the pandemic and in the wake of Brexit, we should demand from them too not only that they do the job - but that they are world-leading and world-beating. That they show the world how the job is done. Thank you.”

Blue Collar Conservatism Event Ladies and gentlemen, The Blue Collar Conservatism movement is fundamentally about making our party responsive to the needs of working class Britons in areas where we have not traditionally been successful. We saw in 2019, and to a lesser extent in 2017, a renewed success of the Conservative Party in such communities. But if we are to go further, and secure the trust of the hardworking many who find themselves increasingly frustrated with a liberal, metropolitan agenda focused on London and the south east, we must be ready to adapt our thinking and embrace policies which will connect with the downtrodden heartlands of working class Britain. Some of this comes from our traditional values. Lower taxes; I have spoken already at another event about the need, as I see it, to take minimum wage workers out of income tax altogether and to unify the income tax and national insurance thresholds. A strong defence; I have spoken about the need to reinvest in our armed forces and target a 2.5% of GDP defence spend by 2030. Law and order; the Conservatives in government are already hiring tens of thousands of new police officers, but we also need to work to ease the courts backlog, toughen sentencing and ensure that for the most serious offences, life means life. We also need to tackle low-level offending and antisocial behaviour, which is devastating to the people I meet on council estates and in corner shops every day. Part of the solution draws on the great Conservative tradition: a tough rebuke to young offenders. But part of it comes from beyond our own orthodoxy. We must consider how we can give young people responsibility; how we can help them to aspire and achieve; how we can promote model citizenship in a world which increasingly glamorises crime and criminality. We also need to raise living standards in some of our most deprived communities. And that comes, yes, with direct targeted support through the welfare system. It also comes from supporting people of all ages in finding work, finding secure work, and progressing at work. And frankly, it is unrealistic and undesirable to imagine that all young people will or should go to university. There is a commonality amongst people in the poorest communities in that they want to “get on with it” - go into work and start earning money. Often it is because they need to, to help support their families. And more often still it is because they want to: because the working classes of this country, whether it is politically correct to say so or not, have an intrinsic understanding of hard graft, a willingness to do it, and a desire to make money. Helping people to better themselves can be done in three key areas. First, infrastructure: every home in the UK should have access to fast broadband. Every street should be connected to a bus service. When we build flagship projects like HS2, we should focus on driving interconnectivity between more deprived towns and cities. Second, public services: every child should have the opportunity to attend a good or outstanding school. We can achieve that by reforming the education system to put student choice at its heart, and by eliminating the rigid expectation that every child will pursue an academic career. We need to make sure that healthcare provision is top-notch - and even as this government opens new hospitals and clinics, it must ensure that oversubscribed GP and pharmacy services are supported to handle the additional load in terms of patients that comes from local growth and also in the wake of the COVID pandemic. A broad embrace of telemedicine and the opportunities, particularly for the young, of mobile medicine can help todo that. And third, lifelong learning: education that is there for you whenever you need it, whatever you want to learn, and whatever hours you are working. That is why I propose the creation of a College of Britain, along the same lines as the Open University. The College of Britain would provide distance and at-home learning services, mostly in this day and age via the internet but also through local services such as libraries, and would accredit students with academic, technical and vocational qualifications below degree level. It would offer nursing access courses to the carer who dreams of becoming a nurse; it would offer English and Maths tuition for those who are lacking in those key skills; it would offer NVQs and HNDs and business courses for the young girl in Clwyd West I met last week, who wanted more than anything to set up her own online makeup store. I bought some of her lipstick, by the way, and Shaniqua - it’s excellent! And access to the College of Britain would be provided on the same basis as university admissions: free at the point of use, with a tuition loan repayable only if and when the student earns above a reasonable threshold. It would be of no greater cost to the public purse than the £500 million a year afforded to the Open University, and the economic benefits it would bring would far exceed that value. Of course, improved education on its own is not enough. We must cut the taxes of these hardworking communities; improve their services; build the housing that their young desperately need; connect their towns and cities with good public transport; tackle crime and ensure that serious criminals are put away for good. We should also decriminalise marijuana, and stop locking young men and women away for “bunning a zoot.” *there is a degree of confusion and shaking of heads in the audience* But more on that another time. Thank you for having me.”

The Henry Jackson Society Event “It is an absolute pleasure to speak today at the invitation of the Henry Jackson Society on a matter close to my heart: the meaning and future of Global Britain. In the aftermath of the allied withdrawal from Afghanistan, I would like to pay tribute to the myriad military and diplomatic staff of the United Kingdom and of the wider ISAF for their diligence and success in evacuating people from Kabul and elsewhere. I think I speak for everyone - and I have spoken to the Prime Minister too, who agrees with me - that anyone at risk of persecution by the Taliban, and in particular anyone who has assisted the British military force during its twenty-year presence in Afghanistan, should find a safe home in Britain. The withdrawal itself, of course, leaves many questions raised. How do we rate the success of the operation in Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power? Clearly, it has not been wholly successful. But wider and more fundamentally, questions are left unanswered about the role of Britain in the future in the international arena. Over the last eleven years, the defence budget has been cut - there’s no getting around that. For a long time, it was earnestly believed that the future of the British armed forces was in a smaller, more nimble, more highly-specialised force capable of fighting the battles that we assumed would be those of the coming decades: smaller, more sporadic, more assymetrical. And yet I am forced to wonder whether we have learned the wrong lessons. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an overwhelming success, insofar as allied forces removed Saddam Hussein from power and established the basis for a democratic, liberal government in Baghdad. But the subsequent occupation broadly failed in its objectives. In the early days post invasion, there was looting and civil disorder. There were riots. Weapons caches were looted. And the failure of allied forces to control the situation marked the beginning of a descent, gradual at first, and then at once more rapid, into civil war and sectarianism. The problem was not that our forces were not sufficiently mobile or specialised; it was that there were not enough of them, and they had too few resources. Indeed it was only after the American troop surge in 2007 that the security situation in Iraq began again to stabilise. We all heard the stories of inadequate armour, broken-down vehicles, and insufficient helicopter backup. And it is easy to dismiss the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as the conflicts of the past; to assume that we will never again fight a war on that scale or in that way. But we thought this once before: when the British government presented Options for Change at the close of the Cold War, and dramatically downsized our armed forces. Indeed, only nine years ago, President Obama mocked his Republican opponent in the presidential election for naming Russia as the biggest extant threat to the United States. Who is laughing now? Our defence reviews and assumptions should not be focused solely on anticipating a future whose bounds we cannot know for sure; rather, our focus should be on maintaining existing capabilities and ensuring that our overall ability to conduct operations of any kind, not just those we deem most likely, is not diminished. The power of a large and strong conventional force cannot be underestimated, particularly as we seem once again duty bound to fight the war of words between open and closed societies, between democracies and autocracies: between Britain and her allies, and Russia, China, Iran. I would propose that the government seriously contemplates raising defence spending beyond 2% of GDP to 2.5% by 2030 and 3% by 2040. And I would further challenge the government to ensure that Britain’s armed forces are the best-trained, paid, equipped and cared for in the world. There is an old joke, not very diplomatic, and meant in jest, about the American servicemen who arrived in Britain from 1942 onwards: that they had all the gear and no idea. Our servicemen and women deserve to have all the gear and a landscape-dominating repertoire of training and experience behind them, and that costs money. Frankly, it is money we cannot afford not to spend. Because whilst today another Iraq or Afghanistan looks unlikely, it would not take much for looming threats in Iran, Pakistan or Syria to pose a serious danger. China has her eyes firmly on Taiwan. And Russia is salivating over the Baltics and Ukraine. Beyond the military sphere, it is clear that Britain remains one of the premier exporters of soft power in the world. We can enhance our ability to exert cultural, diplomatic and economic power by continuing to promote free and fair trade, by expanding the bounds of the BBC World Service and institutions such as the British Council, by maintaining our commitment to Overseas Development Aid and by stepping in with humanitarian solutions when the world is in crisis: in Hong Kong, for instance, I see nothing short of a legion of former and future Britons ready to rejoin a free society and make the United Kingdom their home. The World Service should redouble its efforts on providing honest information and education in those areas of the world where restricted information is the norm; and Britain should take the lead in legislating for human, civil and political rights around the world. With our allies in Europe and the Five Eyes community, and the Commonwealth realms, we should consider developing a ‘Belt and Brace’ international investment fund to wrest away Chinese dominance of FDI in Africa and the far east. And we should seek vigorously to support the arts, and Britain’s cultural contribution to the world. These measures will not make the United Kingdom a reborn hegemon or create in the world a new Pax Britannica. But they will ensure that we continue to bear the responsibility of free and prosperous nations to the oppressed and poor - and reap the rewards. Thank you.”

The Spectator Event “Ladies and gentlemen, What a pleasure it is to be able to speak today and to have met so many people courtesy of The Spectator. What always inspires me when I come to Conservative Party Conference is the number of enthusiastic young people, many of whom are coming to conference for the first time, who surely cast away any doubt that this party can find and has found a constituency in the young. The COVID-19 pandemic unleashed challenges on a scale foreign to this generation of Britons. Perhaps in the most meaningful way since the Second World War, the state was forced to intervene in the economy in a manner so overwhelming and far-reaching that it changed the fabric of the British political debate. We lost, for a time, some of our most treasured liberties as we made sacrifices to keep people safe. But we also saw light in the darkness: the communities which came together, starting Facebook pages and WhatsApp groups and arranging to deliver essential supplies to those in need. The businesses which adapted to circumstance, embracing flexible working and allowing their workforces to work more readily from home. The teachers and doctors who innovated, seeing those in their charge virtually and striving still to provide the best possible care. The legacy of COVID lives with us all. But as we move past the pandemic, and indeed past Brexit, we must accept that for many people a return to the status quo is simply not good enough. Just as, after the second world war was one, the British people demanded that the country change and win the peace; the people today demand that things change and that we win the future. It is not enough to build back; rather, we must, as the Prime Minister has said, Build Back Better. And there are a couple of essential ways in which we can do this. First, as a party of low taxes and small government, the Conservatives must work to recapture the imagination of the British people and promote what these values mean in practice. Consider a single mother working in social care, putting in 40 hours a week on the minimum wage. Before tax she will earn £1,520 a month. But she will lose almost £100 of that money each month to tax. And so she will work one of her twelve hour shifts, in which she earns only £9.50 in an hour, for the taxman rather than for herself. It is clear to me that the basic personal allowance should be set at the level of the full-time minimum wage: so that nobody earning less than this pays a penny in income tax. And more than that, the rates of income tax and national insurance contributions should be harmonised: so that again, those who are taking home less than the bare minimum are not forced to contribute to the Treasury’s coffers. Of course, such changes would need to be gradual and careful. Means of replacing lost revenue would need to be found. But if our tax system is to be one which is fair and one which rewards hard work, it is simply unacceptable that those earning what the government deems the minimum acceptable income are working for free at the behest of HMRC. Another badly-needed measure to revolutionise our country is the liberalisation of the planning system and a wholesale commitment to housebuilding. I subscribe to the housing theory of everything: that is that the ability to own or rent a home where you want to affects almost everything else not only in your own life, but in the strength of the wider economy. It determines the employment opportunities you can seek, the services you have access to, the schools your children will attend. And right now, especially for the young, getting on the housing ladder is harder than at any time before in our history. There is a chronic housing shortage in Britain, and if the Conservatives are to maintain a winning coalition of voters amongst the British electorate, we must address it. One of the problems is the planning regime itself. I am delighted to know that the Prime Minister is proposing in this session a Planning Bill which will make it easier to build the homes that people need. But another issue is the designation of vast swathes of economically valuable land, close to centres of job creation, as part of the infamous greenbelt - which has doubled in size since the 1970s, much of which is already built on, and very little of which constitutes an area of natural beauty or ecological significance. The solution in my mind is to institute the creation of new garden cities, each housing 100,000 residents, on the peripheries of the large existing cities and to enable rapid mass transit between them. High quality, beautiful homes surrounded by green space, and designed to be walkable, cyclable and accessible for public transport. Such new developments, in economic and innovation hotspots such as the Oxford-Cambridge arc, would create up to a million new homes in areas of very high demand and extend the boundaries of our property-owning democracy to those who have until now been excluded from that franchise. Politically, there will always be local difficulties with the construction of new dwellings. Noone wants a new town in their back yard. But the national considerations are far bigger. The Conservative Party cannot afford to be a party of NIMBYism; for NIMBYism is the younger brother of Ludditism, and we here all understand the unstoppable nature of change. It is always better to be the architect of events than a passenger in their voyage. If this government grasps the nettle of local interests and applies a national strategy to revolutionise access to housing, we can tackle many of our other challenges: sluggish economic growth, the ticking demographic timebomb, the all-consuming creation of wealth in London at the expense of the rest of the UK. Colleagues, it is no panacea: but it is the closest damn thing. And it is a policy for which I will be advocating most strongly in the weeks and months ahead. Thank you.”

Clwyd West

Juliet Freya Elizabeth Manning is a Welsh Conservative Party politician and the Member of Parliament for Clwyd West since 2015. Born on 8th December 1965, Juliet’s parents were General Practitioners and partners at a doctor’s surgery in Denbighshire. Her father was English and her mother Welsh, with the couple settling in Wales in the years prior to Juliet’s birth. Juliet attended a Welsh-language primary school, ensuring her fluency in the tongue, and went on to attend a girls’ grammar school in Eirias. Manning attended Prifysgol Aberystwyth where she read Economics, and upon graduating took up a role with Banc Cymru. She was Director of Corporate Services by the time of the bank’s closure in 2002, and went on to take up a senior position with Royal Mail. Manning was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Royal Mail in 2010, in which capacity she advised the government regarding compliance with EU directive 2008/6/EC, which required fully open competition in the postal sector by 2012. The then Business Secretary, Vince Cable, planned to comply with the regulation by privatising the organisation; Manning was instrumental in securing agreement that 10% of shares would be held by Royal Mail staff, with the remaining 90% to be privatised. Manning remained in post until 6 February 2014, by which time the Royal Mail had been floated on the London Stock Exchange. Manning’s departure as Chief Executive came just hours after her finalisation of a pay settlement with the CWU, agreeing a 9.06% pay rise over three years in order to avoid strike action. Manning’s departure from the company allowed her to stand for election to Parliament in the 2015 general election; she was selected to contest the seat of Clwyd West on behalf of the Conservative Party, which she won easily. After a year on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, she was appointed by Theresa May in 2016 to be a PPS in the Wales Office, and in 2017 she moved to the Cabinet Office. Manning was dropped from the ministerial team upon the appointment of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister in 2019. In 2021 she returned as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Primary Care and Patient Safety after receiving significant media attention for a series of well-received fringe speeches at the Conservative Party Conference, which propelled her to a position of national recognition. Speculation that she would be in line for a Cabinet post at the next reshuffle mounted. Following Sir William Croft’s appointment as Prime Minister in July 2022, Manning received a major promotion as she became Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Home Department. The appointment came as something of a surprise, with Manning having no prior Cabinet-level experience; but Number 10 highlighted her role in leading Royal Mail for four years as evidence of her ability to manage a large organisation such as the Home Office. Manning is married with no children; she suffered an ectopic pregnancy in 1989 and was informed that she would likely never be able to give birth. Manning has described the revelation as “heartbreaking,” saying that “for as long as [she had] lived, [she had] wanted to have children.” Her husband, Damien, worked for HSBC for over forty years and now chairs the British East Asia Investment Forum. The couple own Hensol Castle in Wales. Manning enjoys tennis and netball and lives an active life. She is a practising Roman Catholic.

The Rt Hon. Alice van der Walt QC, MP is a British-South African Labour Party politician and the Member of Parliament for Ealing North. Born on 1 January 1943 in Pretoria in what was then the Union of South Africa, a self-governing dominion of the British Empire, Alice’s father was Nicolaas van der Walt, who worked as a civil servant in the Governor-General’s office, and her mother, Elizabeth van der Walt, was a British expat who had moved to Pretoria shortly before the outbreak of the second world war. At end of the war in 1945, Elizabeth and Nicolaas were divorced amidst allegations of adultery on his part. Elizabeth and the young Alice returned to Britain by steam ship and settled in Acton, with Elizabeth purchasing a house on Horn Lane using a portion of her alimony. Alice attended the City of London School for Girls, funded by her father: she went on to attend the University of Cambridge where she read Law, and was subsequently called to the Bar at Temple Inn. Practising as a criminal barrister for thirty years, van der Walt defended clients in some of London’s most notable trials at the Central Criminal Court. She “took silk” in 1990. In 1994 van der Walt joined the Labour Party, and ahead of the 1997 general election was selected by the party to contest the seat of Ealing North. She won easily. In 2001 van der Walt was appointed a Minister of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In 2004 she became Solicitor General, and in 2007 Minister for the City of London ahead of the demise of Gordon Brown’s Labour government. Van der Walt has never married and has no children.