Contribution
May I associate myself absolutely with the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about Sir David Amess? As he said, today is the fifth anniversary of his tragic murder, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House remain with his loved ones. He was well regarded on both sides of the House. He was a mentor to lots of new Members and a fantastic constituency MP. What happened was an absolute tragedy.
I welcome Members back to the House after the conference recess, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali), who joined us on Monday. It is also good to see the shadow Leader of the House in his place. We missed him earlier in the week, and I was concerned that he was still in the half-empty conference hall in Birmingham, wondering whether the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), had actually finished his speech.
It was a busy conference season. At the Labour conference, the Prime Minister made several important announcements, including plans for a national care service, which will provide the elderly with free personal care. The Government have also announced that the triple lock will remain until the end of this Parliament, following which it will be adjusted, not least to pay for the new national care service.
I do not blame the official Opposition for doing this, because it is part of their job, but they did jump in very quickly to oppose any change to the triple lock. I find that quite surprising, because in August 2021, the shadow Chancellor wrote a comment piece entitled “Unpick the triple lock”, and I understand that the view that it should be unpicked is shared by the current shadow Communities Secretary—the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—and at least one former Chancellor. It appears to me that the Conservative party is tying itself in knots on the matter. It would be very helpful if the Leader of the Opposition, or someone from her shadow Cabinet, came to the House to clear up the confusion.
Let me turn to the Budget. I did announce, in the forthcoming business, the date of the Budget and the beginning of the debate that will follow. I hope that in that debate the House will be able to reflect on Britain’s economic outlook. To that end, I draw to the House’s attention this week’s positive report from the International Monetary Fund, which upgraded our growth to 1.3% this year, joint second highest in the G7, and the comments of the IMF’s chief economist, who said that the UK “stands out”—his words, not mine—on deficit reduction, with our deficit falling significantly more than other G7 nations’. In other good news this morning, GDP has grown more than expected. We are not complacent, but the Chancellor is absolutely focused on priorities to boost business, help with the cost of living and support people in every postcode, all underpinned by the fiscal discipline that characterises this Government.
Flood Action Week—this ties in with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the situation in his constituency —started on Monday. The Government have invested £4.2 billion in flood protection measures, and we have new targets to improve flood protection for 200,000 properties. On Monday, we also launched the flood action online portal, which brings together clear, actionable guidance for people to check their flood risk and find the latest weather alerts.
On flooding, I thank Members on both sides of the House who have raised the issue regularly at business questions. To address the particular issue that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised on behalf of his constituents, however, let me say two things further. First, if he wants to make his case to the Floods Minister, I will arrange for him to do so. Secondly, on making representations to the Chancellor, I will ensure that the Chancellor hears what he has said, although I will not say—because I do not know—what is in the Budget.
On the other points the right hon. Member made, I am not sure that he is being characteristically fair, as he normally is, because the Prime Minister has acknowledged that he misspoke. The right hon. Gentleman was out quite quickly, and rightly, to make his case yesterday, and the Prime Minister did respond. He said that he misspoke, he has apologised and he has corrected the record. There is no excuse for misspeaking in the House and I am not trying to explain that away, but this Prime Minister is characterised by an authenticity and a passion in the way that he responds. It is not unusual for Prime Ministers or anybody else to misspeak in the House. As long as they correct the record, which he has done, that should be put into perspective.
The right hon. Gentleman also raises the issue of Manchester City, and the Prime Minister again has been characteristically clear. He has made it clear that the initial judgment on the club is very serious and that no one is suggesting that anybody is above the rules. There is an ongoing independent process. It is important that it is allowed to run its course as quickly and as fairly as possible. At the end of that, if the Sport Minister needs to come to make a statement to this House, I am quite sure that she will do so.