UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Chris Grayling

  • Chris Grayling – 2023 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Chris Grayling – 2023 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2023.

    I rise for the first and last time to speak in a King’s Speech debate in this House. It is a moment of big change for us all. The fact that it is all too tempting to start talking about the Queen’s Speech is just a sign of how used we were to having the late Queen after her 70 years of incredible service to this country. It is a big year for her son in taking over as King, and in delivering his first King’s Speech. Although he has an incredibly hard act to follow, I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has taken up his responsibilities, for his first year in his position, and for what he has done today in starting the new parliamentary Session. He has clearly already shown himself to be a monarch we can be proud of.

    There are a number of points in the King’s Speech that I will pick up on. First, I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) about the importance of signing up to the CPTPP and the provisions in the King’s Speech for doing that. He is absolutely right to highlight the benefits of free trade for people around the world. It is a matter of deep distress to those of us who believe in free trade that so many countries seem to be taking a step away from it. In the end, that will not lead to a more prosperous world; it will not lead to fewer people being in poverty. If we revert to a world of tariffs, protectionism and subsidies, we will end up in a position where the world is a poorer place, not a richer place. I see our joining the CPTPP as a step in this country’s commitment towards the free trade environment that is needed around the world. It is, as my right hon. Friend says, a crucial part of the world for future economic growth. We are right to seek partnerships there, to do business there and to work closely with countries that are, after all, our friends.

    On energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset mentioned the Drax power station and, in doing so, drew attention to a really important issue for this country. The Government are absolutely right to seek to continue to exploit oil and gas from the North sea. The Climate Change Committee itself expects us to still need significant amounts by 2050, so why on earth is it better for this country to ship oil and gas from the middle east in large tankers with higher emissions than simply producing it off the coast of Scotland, creating and protecting jobs in Scotland? It baffles me as to why the SNP seems keen to destroy jobs in Scotland, but it is.

    At the same time, we see the continued shipping and burning of vast amounts of timber from North America as being somehow a renewable source of energy. In some respects, biomaterials can be and are a renewal source of energy, but I have increasing misgivings about the sheer volume of deforestation in the forests of the northern part of the world to generate the amount of energy that comes from the Drax power station. Over the next two or three years, as we move to the point where its contract for difference is to be reviewed, we have to ask, is this really the right thing to do? Are we absolutely certain that it is coming from sustainable sources and that the forests being cut down are being replanted and harvested properly? I have my questions. Before we continue to develop biomass in this country, we have to ask some hard questions about whether it is the right thing to do.

    I welcome the provision on leasehold and freehold in the King’s Speech. I have seen examples in my constituency of development companies and construction companies behaving in ways that are, frankly, among the worst practices in capitalism, exploiting those who have saved to buy their own homes and have ended up just about able to afford them. These people take pride in what they have, and then a few months or years later, the developer looks to put up the cost of not having the freehold—they put up the cost of the leasehold. My view is straightforward: if someone buys a house, it should be freehold. The application of leasehold tenure to what would in the past have been freehold homes is an unacceptable practice. It should stop, and I am very pleased that it is going to stop as a result of this King’s Speech and the legislation that lies ahead, which I hope will have support on both sides of the House.

    I would like to talk about a couple of things on which I want to see action in the Session ahead through secondary legislation and changes to the Government’s approach. The first is in relation to the measures that were put in place in the Environment Act 2021, 18 months ago, dealing with the issue of deforestation around the world. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on global deforestation. Deforestation is one of the great environmental challenges for our planet. We are losing forest at a rate of knots. It has a huge impact on biodiversity and on carbon emissions. It has to stop and to be reversed.

    We were pioneers, through the Environment Act, in saying that we will take practical action to require companies that deal in forest risk products to do proper due diligence, to ensure that those products are not coming from areas that have been illegally deforested. That was the right thing to do. It was a pathfinding piece of legislation and a sign of this Government’s commitment on the issue of biodiversity and the environment. However, the secondary legislation that underpins the Environment Act has yet to materialise. It is complicated to do, and I know that officials are working hard to identify the right way to do it, but this has to happen before the general election. We need to have adequate measures in place on products such as palm oil and soy to ensure that we are not importing those products from areas of illegal deforestation. I ask those on the Front Bench to use all their efforts to ensure that that secondary legislation comes forward soon.

    There is a flipside to the issue, which is what we do about financial services and institutions that invest in companies that are involved in illegal deforestation. We had some good debates last summer, when considering the Financial Services and Markets Bill, about the need to extend the due diligence provisions to the financial services sector. The Government made some positive noises and agreed to start a consultation process to look at how that could be done. I hope we will see tangible progress during this Session, and potentially even legislation coming forward when there is a Finance Bill off the back of the autumn statement.

    These changes are needed, because the issue of illegal deforestation is not simply about the products themselves; it is about the finance that supports the companies that exploit those parts of the world. I want to see proper measures in place. The financial services sector already does due diligence on the investments it makes and the loans it provides, but I want to see it inserting into that due diligence process the knowledge that the companies it is lending to are not simply using that money to support the cutting down of rainforests.

    Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)

    I thank my right hon. Friend—or, rather, the right hon. Member—for giving way. He is making some very important points on due diligence and the need to ensure that consumers and companies know where they are investing and the impact of that on people who live in illegally deforested areas. Does he agree that City investors and companies are crying out for this secondary legislation to be in place as well?

    Chris Grayling

    Absolutely, and I hope the hon. Member does see me as her friend, because she and I co-chaired the APPG on global deforestation until she, sadly, had to give up the role; I congratulate her on her recent elevation on the Opposition Front Bench. I agree with her: there is demand from investors around the world and from consumers.

    This is the right thing to do. I speak as a Conservative who believes passionately in free trade and free markets, but we are also conservative with a small c, and we have always been conservatives who believe in looking after the natural environment and ensuring that we have the right balance and do not destroy the natural world. It is really important that we have in place the checks and balances to ensure that the rogue operations that sadly exist around the world cannot simply tap into financial sources that enable them to do their business.

    There is one other change that I want to see happen, or at least see significant progress on, during this Session, and that is around sustainable aviation fuel. We are going to see the aviation industry change to move towards a lower-emission environment. We are already seeing it, in fact, with the arrival of new engine technology that reduces fuel use and so forth. The development of aviation fuel is crucial if we are to see the step change that the Government in this country and Governments around the world are asking for from the aviation sector. Sustainable aviation fuel is now required by law in this country to play an increasing part in the future of our aviation sector. I very much believe—and I have listened to comments made on both sides of the House—that we need to produce sustainable aviation fuel in the United Kingdom, and we need to create a regulatory environment which enables that to happen.

    We had some good discussions in the latter stages of the last Session. The Government have started a process that I hope will lead to the incentives, support and structures that those emerging markets in sustainable aviation fuel will need, but we need to see further progress in this Session, so that by the time of the election we have a clear path forward to deliver in this country a product that will be essential to what is still one of our biggest and most important business sectors.

    There is a lot to do. We have a year until an election, and I listened to what the Prime Minister said about what we can achieve in a year—assuming it is a year. I heard a lot in the King’s Speech that will make a difference to this country, but there is a lot that we need to change and a lot we need to get on with, and the work starts now.

  • Chris Grayling – 2023 Speech on NHS Winter Pressures

    Chris Grayling – 2023 Speech on NHS Winter Pressures

    The speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that this is not purely an English issue but one affecting whole systems across the western world. I welcome many aspects of what he said, and I am grateful to staff at Epsom Hospital and those in the ambulance service in my constituency. So much of the time of those paramedics is spent taking frail elderly people from care homes to A&E where, frankly, they probably should not be. What steps can he take to divert some of those frail and elderly people from A&E to take some of the pressure off and get them to an environment where they will be much better looked after?

    Steve Barclay

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is where virtual wards have potential significant benefits in both demand management—avoiding elderly, frail patients coming to emergency departments in the first place—and releasing capacity in hospitals. The virtual ward at Watford General Hospital, equivalent to an additional ward of the hospital, is able to release patients with the comfort of knowing that they are still under supervision. Their medical information is being tracked and monitored and they get a daily phone call from a nurse. They also know that, if they need to come back to the hospital, they can do so much more quickly. That gives patients the comfort and confidence to recover at home, which is often where they want to be. Indeed, patient satisfaction from that trial at Watford was over 90%.

  • Chris Grayling – 2022 Speech on Financial Investment and Deforestation

    Chris Grayling – 2022 Speech on Financial Investment and Deforestation

    The speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 17 October 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require banks and investment institutions regulated in the UK to verify and certify that they do not provide any form of financial or investment support to businesses which derive income from forest risk commodities, or that relevant local laws were complied with in relation to such commodities; and for connected purposes.

    Deforestation around the world is a critical issue for the future of our natural world and our planet. The loss of forest cover has made climate change worse, has pushed millions of species closer to extinction and continues to cause real damage to ecosystems. The threat to the three biggest forest areas, in the Amazon, the Congo basin and south-east Asia, is particularly acute, and I am very proud that the United Kingdom has taken such a lead in the Congo in particular to try to halt deforestation and protect the key habitats there. I know that Members on both sides of the House share my concern about the conduct of the Brazilian Government over deforestation in the Amazon, and I will continue to use opportunities in the House to push for change there, regardless of who wins power at the elections later this month.

    The deforestation threats that remain around the world overwhelmingly result from commercial pressures driven by agriculture. Forests are being cut down to make way for palm oil plantations, for soya production or for cattle ranches. In some places, including Costa Rica and Gabon, Governments have put a brake on deforestation, which is hugely welcome, but in too many places illegal deforestation is still destroying the natural world.

    I am proud that this country has been at the forefront of creating legislative frameworks to help to address the commercial exploitation of forest-risk products. The Environment Act 2021 creates the first real framework to require UK businesses to know where their supplies are coming from and whether they come from areas affected by illegal deforestation, although I would say to Ministers that they need to move faster in putting the necessary regulations in place to back up the Act. What we have done should make it much harder for UK retailers to end up selling products from areas where illegal deforestation has taken place, but more needs to be done and that is what this Bill seeks to achieve. Solving the problem of illegal deforestation is not just about identifying where agricultural products originate from, or the sustainability, or otherwise, of supplies of commodities such as timber; it is vital to follow the money as well and that is where we need another round of change.

    We should all be proud that the UK has one of the tiny number of major financial centres around the world. The City of London is probably the most important part of our economy today, generating profits that bring taxes to the Exchequer and help to pay for things such as the NHS. But the City is also a place where deals are done that affect countries around the world, so it is a place where corporate responsibility is of exceptional importance. I want the City to provide financial resource and advice to investment projects and to corporations around the world—that is a given, and the City does a good job of it. In doing so, however, the institutions offering those services from the UK also need to be mindful of the impact the finance they provide has on the communities, countries and environments they work with. Although the clearance of an area of rainforest is often carried out at a local level by people creating a new farmland area, rather than by big corporations, it is the corporations that then arrive to buy the products of that illegal land clearance.

    The Government are rightly requiring retailers to know where products such as soy and palm oil come from, and that they do not sell products that are sourced from illegally deforested areas, but it has to be right that the financial institutions that bankroll those big corporations also apply a similar standard to the investments that they make, to the banking services that they supply, and to the shares that they purchase.

    Over the past couple of years, the Government’s global resource initiative taskforce has looked carefully at this issue and I commend the Ministers involved in setting up that initiative. However, it found that the UK finance sector lends and invests, directly and indirectly, in forest product supply chains where issues genuinely exist. Although it found that there is no overall figure for the UK finance sector’s exposure to forest-risk ventures, it clearly identified that the financial support and investment being provided to companies, sectors and financial institutions with high deforestation risk amounts to hundreds of billions of pounds. It also found that, although a handful of the biggest institutions internationally are working to try to address the issue, the majority of financial institutions have not taken steps to actively assess or manage deforestation risks.

    The majority of institutions do not have deforestation policies. Many of these are headquartered in the UK. Many others also operate local branches in the City of London.

    Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. Member give way?

    Chris Grayling

    If I am allowed to. Am I? No.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. This is a ten-minute rule Bill.

    Chris Grayling

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I know how passionately the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) feels about this issue. I am glad to number him among the Bill’s sponsors.

    Even where the head office team in an institution are working to try to change their approach, all too often decisions are being taken in a branch elsewhere by local teams that end up having the opposite effect. Whether through bond sales, banking services, investment funds or any other route, the reality is that the finance sector globally—this includes some institutions in London—is backing big international corporations that are still doing business directly or indirectly with those cutting down the rainforests. My Bill would change that. It would require financial institutions to include forest risk in the due diligence they do before making any investment or providing any banking service.

    We are moving to require retailers to know whether the products that they sell contain forest-risk products from areas of illegal deforestation, and I want to see the investment community required to do the same. I know that regulation and deregulation in the City is a live topic at the moment, and I share the ambition to see the removal of unnecessary red tape that is imposed on our financial services. All too often, regulation ticks a box but does not actually make a difference. However, I do not think that regulation around deforestation is an example of that; it is not the same thing.

    It is vital to all of us that we halt the loss of our natural habitats. We cannot afford to see the continuing loss of biodiversity in the Amazon or elsewhere, and the reality is that our financial services sector—whether it intends to or not—is financing those who make illegal deforestation possible. Businesses involved in financing projects around the world already do due diligence to work out financial viability and test risks. The Bill would not impose an extra process on them but simply add something to what they already do. That could make a massive difference. It is essential if we are to step up our combat against deforestation.

    We face a problem around the world that is disastrous for all of us. It must stop. My Bill would make it much more difficult for financial institutions to provide the support that is enabling illegal deforestation to take place in too many parts of the world. I commend it to the House.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Chris Grayling, Andrew Selous, Jim Shannon, Chris Bryant, Wera Hobhouse and Barry Gardiner present the Bill.

    Chris Grayling accordingly presented the Bill.

  • Chris Grayling – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Chris Grayling – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.

    I am very grateful to be able to participate in this solemn occasion, one that we all knew would happen but that, in our heart of hearts, we all hoped would not. It is a day of mourning for all of us individually, for the House collectively and for the whole nation, and not just for this nation. I was struck last night by the picture of an American baseball diamond with the teams lined up for a minute’s silence in recognition of the loss of the Queen.

    Of course, the Queen was a global figure. I remember hosting the Global Law Summit in 2015, when the Queen very kindly hosted a reception at the palace. The US Justice Secretary, a powerful man in that country, came up to me after he had been introduced to the Queen and said, “I feel like a nine-year-old. It is amazing that I’m here. It is extraordinary.” That is what the world thought of her, and it is why they will all be mourning with us now.

    I have two particular reasons for mourning. As a committed racing watcher, the Queen came to my constituency every year to attend the Derby, and she will be much missed there. I received an email from a constituent this morning that said, “We will miss that moment every year when she drove up the road at the end of our street and we could all see her and wave as she went past.” She will be missed by everybody in Epsom.

    I will particularly miss her because I had the privilege of serving for five years, first as her Lord Chancellor and then as Lord President of her Council. In those two roles one gets to spend a considerable amount of time with her, although not as much time as the Prime Minister, and she was an extraordinary, welcoming, kind, smart person. I remember the moment when the current Archbishop of Canterbury was sworn in. We went through the formula that we go through on such occasions and, when we had finished, the Queen and the archbishop, who used to work for Shell in Nigeria, embarked on the most extraordinary conversation about the politics of Nigeria. She knew it inside out. She was incredibly knowledgeable about what was going on in this country and elsewhere.

    She was incredibly welcoming to all of us who had the privilege of spending time with her in our various working capacities. We knew she was a kind, warm and always welcoming person. There was always the twinkle in her eye, to which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) referred, and there was always a light-hearted conversation, sometimes about great issues and sometimes about simple matters such as how she managed all the dogs at Sandringham at Christmas time. I remember, on so many occasions, going in to see this incredible global figure and being made to feel welcome; being made to feel that she was interested in what I and we were doing. I feel incredibly proud that she was our monarch.

    I join the right hon. Gentleman in wishing all the very best to King Charles III. He has had a long apprenticeship, and I believe he will be a great monarch. I know everyone in this House will wish him all the very best at what is a very difficult time for him. We extend our condolences to all members of the royal family, who have lost their grandmother and great-grandmother. This is a very sad occasion for them.

    Today I particularly think back to one conversation I had with the Queen before a Privy Council meeting. We were talking about the way technology is changing the world, and I said, “It is extraordinary. The world is changing so fast. Who knows where we will be in 30 years’ time?” She said, “The only thing I know is that I will not be there.” Sadly she is not, and we will miss her.

  • Chris Grayling – 2022 Speech on the Restoration of the Palace of Westminster

    Chris Grayling – 2022 Speech on the Restoration of the Palace of Westminster

    The speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 12 July 2022.

    My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is new to this. I recognise that both as a friend and a thoughtful politician he is approaching this in the way he judges the most sensible, so I do not want him to take any of the comments from me or from other Members tonight as being about him, but it is about seven years of failure, in my view.

    We are standing in what is, for all of us, the office, but it is also a global landmark. We have all seen how—thank goodness, in the wake of the pandemic—the streets outside are full of tourists again. People come here to be photographed alongside the Elizabeth Tower and see this building as a symbol of the United Kingdom. The reality is that it is a world heritage site. People who question whether we should spend money on updating, restoring and protecting it, and say that we should move to a new building elsewhere, miss the point that we have a legal duty, whatever we do as a democracy, to restore this building and protect it for the future.

    Back in 2015, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I, and others, including the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), sat on a Joint Committee of both Houses saying, “What are we going to do about the problem?” It is a very real and acute problem. When I became Leader of the House in 2015, about four days later, we very nearly had to relocate out of this building because up there in the vents the engineers found asbestos. Had they discovered that that asbestos had been disturbed—fortunately it had not; it had remained unmoved for decades—we would have had no choice but to close the Chamber for months and months.

    That kind of risk is with us every day of every week. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) referred to the leak yesterday. Thank goodness it was a small problem. But we saw what happened at Notre Dame. Yes, the Leader of the House is right that it was down to a workman in the building doing the wrong thing, but we have workmen right across this building all the time, and it can happen. We saw what happened at Clandon Park. The thing that really brought it home to me at the time of the Joint Committee was when Kingsway caught fire—a road caught fire—because of electrical problems underneath its surface, and it burned for about two days.

    The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right: the fire service have always said, as they said back in 2015—it is not just about now—that, if there is a serious incident in this place, they could save the people but they could not save the building. So every day of every week in this building, we live with the risk that we may discover that an asbestos problem or a critical failure of the plumbing system means that we have to move.

    Mark Tami

    The right hon. Gentleman is a fellow person who has been at this for seven years. We have already seen a release of asbestos in Speaker’s House that will lead to a group of people having to be monitored for probably about 40 years to see whether in those terrible circumstances anything actually develops, and that can happen in any part of the building.

    Chris Grayling

    The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We went through all this seven years ago. It is hugely frustrating to me that we are here seven years later still working out what to do about it. I thought that we would have done something by the time we got to 2022.

    The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rhondda will remember me pushing hard to get the northern estate project started so that we could move on and decant quickly. At least the northern estate, or some parts of it, is being done, and we have taken over Richmond House, as we planned at the time, but here we are seven years later still discussing how we are going to do this. It is not about discussing how we are going to do it starting in about a year’s time. I cannot see how we quickly get to a point where the works are actually starting. With every week that goes by, there is the risk that we as Members of Parliament wake up in the morning and discover that we have relocated to Church House indefinitely. We have to accept that.

    Chris Bryant

    Is not one of the difficulties that all the alternative places that we would have to go to in an emergency are not safe? Church House is not safe from any kind of bomb attack, and there is no other venue that we could go to. I think the Government have just sold the one other place that we might have gone to. There is nowhere. So this is not only a risk to us and the building; it is also a risk to our democracy.

    Chris Grayling

    We have been around the houses on this. We had all the proposals, whether it was “Let’s build some great gin palace on Horse Guards”, “Let’s have some great building taking up the whole width of the River Thames”, or, “Let’s move out of London”, but the logistics of this place mean that Parliament and Government have to be close to each other. In order that Ministers can go to and fro between their Departments and the Front Bench, in order to have interactions between both Houses of Parliament, and in order to have basic levels of security—given the horrendous events that have taken place in recent times, we absolutely have to make that a priority—the reality is that Parliament will not move off the secure estate. It is why we recommended taking over Richmond House, because it was the one place that gives us extra capacity within a secure environment.

    The reason I have put my name to this amendment tonight and the reason I am minded to push it to a Division, unless I can achieve an extra bit of assurance from the Leader of the House—I hope he will be able to say a couple of words at the end—is that we have been around the houses on this issue, and we have talked about all the different options. We have explored the issues and challenges, and the Leader of the House is absolutely right that we do not have the expertise in-house. We need the expert advisers. I respect the fact that he will bring in further expert advice to help him, but, at the end of the day, there are only a certain number of ways in which we can do this.

    On the Joint Committee, we agreed that doing this bit by bit over a 30-year period does not work, because that would leave too much risk for too long. We explored whether we could do half the building and then the other half, but the problem is that the services are all common to both Houses. There is not a shutter that can be brought down between the Commons and the Lords—the sewerage and plumbing systems work for both, and the risers full of asbestos serve both. There is no simple option that allows us to move into the Lords Chamber while this is done, and so forth. We came to the clear conclusion that a decant was the only realistic option.

    Many Members have expressed concerns that if we move out, we will never move back. I do not think we can just move out with an endless timeframe. There has to be a clear mandate for the people who will do the work, and that is the purpose of the amendment. It states that we think the only viable option—I have discussed the fact that we spent a year debating it—is a decant that lasts a maximum of eight years, because no Parliament will accept being asked to write a blank cheque. This is where I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The idea that we could do a 20-year decant is crazy. We cannot do that.

    We need to give a clear brief to the Delivery Authority and all those working on the project that we are prepared to countenance a decant that takes us through much of one Parliament and much of the next, but we do not think that any generation of Members of Parliament should be deprived of the opportunity to spend at least a part of their time here participating in debate in this Chamber. Realistically, an eight-year timeframe is the most that is possibly sellable to Members of Parliament. It is, in my view, the only deliverable option. It will cost money, and there is nothing we can do about that, because this is a world heritage site. It is a duty that we just have to perform. If we do not give a clear brief to those who will be deciding the way forward and making recommendations, we will frankly be kicking the can down the road yet again.

    I seek my right hon. Friend’s assurance that at the end of this debate, and as this approach goes forward, he will give a clear mandate that we will see what it will cost and what it will take for us to be decanted from here for eight years and then return. If he can assure me that that will be part of the brief and we will all be able to see the outcome, I will be happy not to press the amendment to a Division. However, we spent a year coming to this conclusion, so I am not happy to cast it aside, and I do not think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is either.

    We have done an awful lot of work, and we are all deeply frustrated that we have got to this point seven years later. We cannot possibly defend that, and I describe this amendment as the “Bloody hell, get on with it” amendment. We worked out that the decant was the only way forward. When the plans are laid before this House next year, we want to see the eight-year decant and what it entails on the table for Members to consider. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is happy to give me that assurance, I am happy not to press the amendment, but I am adamant that we must have that on the table.

    This is a historic responsibility for us all. The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right that we cannot be the Parliament that swept this under the carpet; we have got to get on with it. It is not the fault of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we are where we are, but we should never have got into this position in the first place. I ask him and all on the Commissions to ensure that we really get on with it at pace. If we do not, one day we will find that we are no longer sitting in this Chamber, but stuck in Church House, thinking, “What on earth are we going to do now?” That would be letting down our democracy and letting down our country.

  • Chris Grayling – 2022 Speech on Achieving Economic Growth

    Chris Grayling – 2022 Speech on Achieving Economic Growth

    The speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 18 May 2022.

    Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will endeavour to fulfil that.

    The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is right about conciliation, but it is noticeable that the European Union is preventing the United Kingdom from participating in Horizon Europe, while allowing the Israelis to do so. That does not feel to me like an awful lot of good will from their side, and that is to be regretted.

    I rise to support the Queen’s Speech. As we focus on economic growth, these are extraordinary and difficult times for our economy. We have had in this country to deal with an unprecedented series of problems, and so have our Ministers—something the Opposition often forget as they throw brickbats at them.

    We now know from the World Health Organisation that the Government and the country handled the tragic circumstances of the pandemic pretty well. Many countries suffered and so did we, but we were far from being the bad performer that has been suggested. We also forget the continued impact of the pandemic in China, where there are severe lockdowns still. That is causing an economic ripple effect that contributes to the inflation problems we face. The sad reality is that when oil prices, food prices and the cost of household energy soar, those things are outside the control of any individual Government and there are few Governments that can wave a wand and solve them.

    I am pretty supportive of much of what this Government have done and how they have gone about dealing with the range of issues that have arisen, but I make one simple point to the Minister and his colleagues: we cannot achieve growth by over-taxing our economy. The decisions that have been taken on tax have been taken, but the direction of travel needs to change, and soon.

    We also need to step up our incentivisation of investment. If we are to deal with the huge energy challenges this country faces, we must do more. That means continuing our dramatic progress on wind and solar power; it means, I suspect, looking again at tidal energy and it means developing hydrogen. It must be said that we would be in a much more difficult position if this Government and the coalition Government before them had not placed such emphasis on renewables. That was clearly the right thing to do. However, we also need more domestic production of gas. There are those who say we should stop all fossil fuel projects now. I take completely the opposite view.

    As the world rightly moves away from coal, something needs to take its place. Countries that have been dependent on coal are not suddenly going to make a complete switch to renewables or zero-emission nuclear power stations overnight, so gas, which is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, must be a short-term priority for us. Indeed, it is the move away from coal in parts of Asia that started the gas price surge in the first place. It is pretty clear that the world does not at the moment have enough gas for the transition to net zero, particularly as we deal with the consequences of the war in Ukraine, so we will see prices continue to remain high unless we deal with supply issues.

    That is why it makes absolute sense—the Government are right to be supporting this—to have additional extraction of gas from the North sea. Frankly, we would be in dereliction of our duty if we did not look again at the potential to use shale gas to help us through. To those who say, “No more UK production”, I just say this: the emissions from a tanker of gas from Qatar are roughly twice those of a similar consignment from the North sea. I want to cut emissions. I also believe that we need a steady transition to net zero by 2050—but it is a transition. Burning fuel that generates twice the emissions makes no sense. Gas is a key part of our transition to net zero, and the more it can be produced in the UK, the lower our emissions will be. We also need to move rapidly on nuclear, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to that as well. We cannot achieve net zero without it.

    Let me turn to the environment and conservation. If I have a disappointment in this Queen’s Speech, it is that the legislation on conservation I was hoping for has slipped beyond this Session. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, who is in his place will make sure that it comes back in the next Session. We urgently need to take forward the progress we have made but also to put in place a modernised framework for wildlife protection in this country. For example, it makes no sense to have expansive protections in place for newts, which are numerous here, but not for creatures such as the hedgehog that have declined so much. I have pushed for the hedgehog to have greater legal protection and I look forward to this happening in the next Session, at least. But there are steps that can be taken now. When the levelling-up Bill comes before the House, I will table an amendment, if the Government have not already acted, to require a full wildlife survey of every development site, and if vulnerable species are found, there should be a legal duty to relocate them to an appropriate habitat elsewhere. No more should we tolerate developers cutting down all the trees on the site and clearing all the foliage, turning it into a wasteland, before they have even applied for, let alone secured, planning consent. We need growth, and we need more houses, but a cavalier approach to local wildlife cannot be the consequence.

    In this Session I will continue to push Ministers to go further and faster on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. We have made a start in the first few areas, but there is much further to go. This is a really important of protecting our ecology. Having stronger environmental protections in our seas is one of the benefits that is deliverable now that we have left the European Union. It would not have been possible while we were still EU members.

    Turning to broader issues on conservation, I applaud Ministers for the work they are doing internationally, and particularly what Lord Goldsmith is doing to support the Congo Basin. The leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on COP26 and its aftermath has been exemplary. One of the key moments of the coming Session will be the negotiations at the Convention on Biological Diversity summit this year. I want the UK to play a key role in delivering what is needed—a renewed international drive on species protection and habitat restoration. WWF estimates that the amount of degraded land internationally where deforestation followed by over-farming has taken place is the size of South America. If we are going to tackle climate change, protect endangered species and deal with a global food shortage, we need to start recovering this land, restoring it for wildlife in some areas or properly managed agriculture in others, with a particular focus on creating sustainable livelihoods for the people in those areas. Our Ministers need to make sure that we set a path towards those goals as we finish our year of COP presidency and take part in the CBD discussions.

    There is a lot to do in terms of a growing economy, the move towards net zero, and doing our bit internationally to secure a proper future for all our environments. I am glad to support a Government who, in my view, have made a good start, but there is still a lot to do.

  • Chris Grayling – 2021 Speech on HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

    Chris Grayling – 2021 Speech on HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

    The speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 12 April 2021.

    We have heard a series of fulsome tributes to the Duke of Edinburgh this afternoon, and much has already been said about his extraordinary life and contribution to this country. As somebody who had the honour of serving as Lord Chancellor and then Lord President of the Council over a four-year period, I particularly wanted to say a few words on this very sad occasion. In particular, I wanted to convey my deep condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and the whole of the royal family.

    Listening to the debate this afternoon, few would disagree that the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been the most distinguished in the history of the monarchy in this country. She is not just a much loved figurehead for our nation; she is respected around the world and continues to be a remarkable figure as Head of State to this country and many others around the Commonwealth, and as head of the Commonwealth. But it is absolutely not, in my view, an exaggeration to say that she could not have done everything she has without the tireless support of the Duke of Edinburgh through the nearly 70 years of her reign. Through all those years, he has been at her side and has helped her give the country the leadership that has been so valuable to us all.

    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, that duty came with personal sacrifice. The Duke of Edinburgh was a very distinguished defender of this country in the second world war and did some extraordinary things during that conflict, but then he gave up a promising career and the potential for high rank—possibly the highest rank—in the Navy to follow the Queen in her role both here and abroad. He did so with a sense of service to this country that few could match.

    That sense of duty ran well after most people had long retired. I remember the Duke of Edinburgh taking the time to visit my constituency to open a new building when he was in his 80s. As he strode around the building—and he did stride around the building—I remember remarking to his equerry how impressive and extraordinary it was that he was still doing so much for the country at that age. “He is a lesson to us all,” was the reply, and indeed he was. That visit was nearly 20 years ago, and for most of the years since then, he just carried on with the same work he had been doing for most of his lifetime, retiring only at the age of 96. I do not suppose that many of us will be able to match that.

    Away from public duties, the Duke of Edinburgh was a charming and engaging man. I remember, as a Cabinet Minister, attending a dinner at one of the livery companies as its guest for the evening, and being a little surprised to find the Duke around the table as well, clearly outranking me. It turned out that he was not a guest at all but one of the members and a regular attender of the dinners there. He was lively and great company as well—not, of course, to mention that well-known and sharpest of wits.

    The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have been a national team for the United Kingdom for as long as I can remember, and it is going to be very strange without him. This is a very sad time for our country. We have lost somebody who has been a central part of our national life for most of our lifetimes, but for the royal family this is much more. They have lost a husband, a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather. My simple, final message today is to Her Majesty the Question and her family. What I want to say is this, and I imagine it is on behalf of all of us in this House. We all feel deep sorrow about your loss. We are all thinking of you, and we are all sending you our best wishes on this sad occasion for our whole country.

  • Chris Grayling – 2021 Speech on Covid Security at UK Borders

    Chris Grayling – 2021 Speech on Covid Security at UK Borders

    The speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2021.

    The past 12 months have been devastating for many people in my constituency and around the economy in different sectors—in hospitality, events, and entertainment. Jobs have virtually disappeared overnight. What has been particularly striking to me over that time is how many of the people in my constituency had been dependent on the travel sector for their job or their business. In a year when international travel has virtually ground to a halt, and it has by comparison with where we were before, their predicament is dreadful. While for many businesses there is some light at the end of the tunnel as the vaccination programme brings forward the day when lockdown restrictions can end, the same cannot right now easily be said for the travel sector. The issue is not about whether we can give people the chance to sun themselves on a beach; it is about the future of a sector that is crucial to our economy and that simply cannot cope with the loss of a second summer season in a row. This impact on a crucial sector is why the motion today is so poorly thought through.

    I have to say, reluctantly, that I support the measures the Government have taken to restrict access to the UK from countries most at immediate risk from the new variants of the virus. Of course it is not desirable, but it has to happen. It is right to take a precautionary approach, but imposing these kinds of border restrictions on a blanket basis would have the effect of destroying even more jobs both here and elsewhere for no apparent reason, because the reality is that virus rates are higher here than in many of the countries people are coming from.

    The challenge now is to ensure that the restrictions are as short-lived as possible and that we can reopen travel for this vital summer season without the risk of generating a resurgence of the virus in doing so. A solution to this, in my view, is before us and the Government must now take it. Last week, the Health Secretary told me that he was confident that lateral flow tests were a fit and proper way of preventing infection being imported into nursing homes, so why are they not the cornerstone of our strategy to open up airports and other means of travel, not right now, because the current restrictions are necessary, but as part of a plan to reopen the sector properly later this spring? Test people before they depart and test people on arrival. That way, we should not need to quarantine people. If a test result can show infection at the point of arrival and we can back that up with a properly policed quarantine system, there really is no reason why travel cannot reopen later this spring for a proper summer season.

    If we do not do that, the result will be waves of job losses in a sector that is vital to the future for all of us. That is why the Opposition are being so thoughtless, in my view, when they call for this blanket lockdown. The consequences will be more businesses going bust and more jobs lost. That we cannot afford any more of than we absolutely have to for health reasons.

  • Chris Grayling – 2020 Speech on the Restoration and Renewal of the Houses of Parliament

    Chris Grayling – 2020 Speech on the Restoration and Renewal of the Houses of Parliament

    The text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 16 July 2020.

    It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). It is a bit like a reunion of the Joint Committee today—many of us served on it—

    Mark Tami

    Bring the band back together!

    Chris Grayling

    Absolutely. Many of us served on the Joint Committee back in 2015-16, when we looked at all the issues exhaustively. We considered all the ideas that were submitted to us, some partially credible that did not understand the nuances of this place and some frankly less credible, but I want to make the point to everybody, particularly new Members, that this is not something we have an option about. We have got to do this. When I became Leader of the House in 2015, two things happened in quick succession that brought that home to me, one here and one elsewhere.

    First, we nearly had to close the Chamber indefinitely within a few days of my becoming Leader of the House because asbestos was discovered up in the ventilation shafts. If it had become dislodged, or if it were to be dislodged in future, we would have no choice but to immediately close the Chamber indefinitely. What would happen then? The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is right: the building has huge amounts of asbestos. It is a genuine health hazard, which can bite us at any time. That alone is a reason to do the work.

    The second thing that happened had nothing to do with Notre-Dame. A few days after I became Leader of the House, Kingsway caught fire. Kingsway is a road and the wiring under it caught fire and burned for days. I advise all those who have not been down into the basement here to do so. Apart from the sewerage system that was mentioned and the asbestos, the basement contains a jumble of wiring, some very old, that could do just the same—catch fire and burn for days.

    The House authorities have always said that they can get us all out and save our lives, but they cannot save the building. If we have a serious fire, this building will burn down, in the way that Clandon Park burned down and in the way that Notre-Dame burned down. That would not only be a gross dereliction of our duty as stewards of this building but a national tragedy. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people come to visit ​what is a world heritage site. It brings people from around the world; it is one of the world’s iconic landmarks. We cannot possibly put ourselves in a position where year after year the risks increase because the wiring gets older and all the systems get older, so we are making it more likely that there will be a devastating fire and this building will be destroyed. We simply cannot do that.

    As my successor as Leader of the House rightly said, we all come to this project slightly sceptical. It is a lot of money to spend and it is not something that is going to be universally popular with constituents around the country. However, the more one delves into the subject, the clearer it becomes that we have absolutely no choice but to do this. We looked at all the alternatives. We considered whether we could put a temporary Parliament somewhere else. But even if we just went up to Horse Guards or somewhere like that, could we really, at seven o’clock on an Opposition day, have queues of MPs walking across Whitehall to come and vote? What a security risk that would be—what a target for terrorists. We have to keep Members of Parliament and, in particular, people who work for us, who are often as at risk as we are if something terrible happens, within the secure estate.

    That is why and how we came to the conclusion that Richmond House was the best option. It is within the secure estate. It is a building that has flexibilities. The one bit I have a problem with is that I do not buy the argument that it is not possible to put a temporary Chamber into Richmond House without the scale of work that is being considered at the moment. We might need a compromise so that we do not need that period of time to replicate this Chamber exactly. Yes, of course we need to have a debating chamber, and yes, of course it should be consistent with the way that this Chamber works, but it does not have to be like for like—inch for inch, foot for foot identical to here. The Division Lobbies do not have to have exactly the same relationship to the Chamber. We have learned in the past few weeks that we can do things differently, and I buy that argument. We cannot just spend money willy-nilly because it keeps the environment in which we are going to be working close to what we have here now. If it changes a bit, it does not matter.

    We cannot keep delaying this decision. I am frustrated that it is now 2020 and I co-chaired the Committee back in 2015—five years ago. This building is five years older. The systems are five years older. We have looked at all these options before. We looked at whether we could move the Commons to the Lords end. Actually, I am not convinced that the lords would vote for that if they had to leave and we got to stay. But then there are fundamental issues about the services. There is one sewer that services the whole building. So fine, we move to the Lords end, the work is happening down here, and then something goes wrong—the electricity fails or the sewer fails. If the electricity fails, it is going to take the devil’s own job of a time to try to work out what is wrong and how to fix it, and we stop working in the interim. If the sewer breaks, that makes the whole building unusable. It is really very difficult operationally, in a building that was designed as one with the services flowing from one end to the other, to simply say, “We’ll put something down the middle; that end’s fine and this end isn’t.”

    We looked at using Westminster Hall, but there are historical reasons why that is difficult. Perhaps more than any other part of this building, we have a duty to ​protect Westminster Hall. It is the heart of the building which, back in 1834, the fire brigade chose to protect. In the Second World War, when the bomb was dropped, the fire brigade chose to protect Westminster Hall. We cannot abuse Westminster Hall because it gives us a chance to stay a bit closer to this building while the works are happening. We looked at that exhaustively and came to the conclusion that it was not possible.

    I think that anyone who looks through these issues carefully and in detail will reach the same conclusion that we all did five years ago. I commend the work of the Sponsor Body and the work that is to come from the Delivery Body. We chose to recommend that those were set up because we felt that that was the right way forward —to learn the lessons of the London Olympics, to follow a single approach to doing it, and to learn from how similar bodies made that project work effectively. My request to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and all those who are on the Sponsor Body is: please let us get on with this. With every month and every year that goes by, the risk gets greater. I do not want us, as a generation of politicians, to wake up one morning to find that we were the people who did not act in time, the building is no more, and the taxpayer now faces a much, much bigger bill to restore a landmark, as the French do with Notre-Dame. Please, I say to the Leader of the House and to all colleagues, let us get on with this as quickly as we can.

  • Chris Grayling – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Chris Grayling – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2020.

    I will hit a different tone to start. I want to congratulate the Chancellor on his rapid actions to underpin employment across our economy and to support the worst-affected businesses. It was a huge package delivered very quickly and very necessarily.

    It is also true, however, that there are a number of businesses that are not formally required to close but which have been unable to continue trading because of social distancing guidelines set out by their professional bodies or regulators. This is despite the fact that they are formally listed by the core Government rules as being able to continue to trade. Dentists, vets, physiotherapists and many similar professions have seen all their income disappear. I ask the Government to ensure that local authorities have complete discretion over the remaining allocated funds for business support to target such individual businesses that may not fit the textbook but have been particularly badly affected. In addition, there are self-employed groups, including the directors of small companies and those on short-term PAYE contracts, for example, in the media and entertainment industries, for whom the impact of the virus will be long-lasting. Will the Government therefore consider whether there are any other ways of easing the impact on them?

    I am concerned that many of the professional bodies and agencies putting the overall principles of the lockdown into guidance for businesses have erred heavily—and, to be honest, sometimes unnecessarily—on the side of caution in drawing up those guidelines. That has an impact on business, the income of professionals and employment. For example, why can local vets not carry on working as normal, with PPE, as long as pet owners socially distance while they wait for their pets? If emergency ​physiotherapy and dentistry is allowed with appropriate protections, why can routine work not start again? One example I came across in the past few days is that dog walking businesses are having to stop their work because for safety reasons the guidance does not allow dogs from different households to be mixed; the dogs in the park on a Saturday have not quite worked out the need for social distance between households. People are losing their livelihoods because of that. We need common sense, not excessive risk aversion.

    From an international perspective, we already know the possible link between the virus and the trade in wildlife. We also know that much of that trade is illegal, shipping animals such as pangolins from other parts of the world to wet markets in Asia. This is not the first time that a virus is suspected to have made the jump between animals and human beings in the environment of wet markets. This really has to be the moment in which there is a concerted international effort to bring to an end that illegal trade, and to bring to an end the practice of wet markets, which have potentially such significant impacts on the health of the humans who use those markets and, as we now see, around the world.

    There is another issue. With tourism around the world on lockdown, this is also a time when conservation in Africa and the battle against that illegal wildlife trade faces an existential crisis, leaving a gaping hole for poachers and illegal traders. I urge the Government to channel more of our international aid budget to support vital conservation projects, in particular projects that protect species from poaching, and defend the species that are most at risk from the collapse of local economies in Africa.

    These are momentous times. I pay a huge tribute to the key workers in my constituency, particularly at Epsom Hospital, who have done such an incredible job in the past few weeks. I think the Government should take credit for much of what they have done. There are challenges, there are things we will not get right and there is more to do, but we have to win through, get our economy back on the road and defeat the virus.