Commons Chamber

Wednesday 26th February 2025

(began 11 months, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:13
12:13
12:14
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
We certainly stand with Ukraine and I think I speak for the whole house when I say that. As I set out yesterday, NATO is the bedrock of our security. It has been our most important alliance for many many years, as importantly as it has ever been. We build that alliance by working with the US. We have a special and steep relationship with the US, that is not just words it is to do with security, defence, intelligence capability. Vitally important for both sides, but we also work with our European allies and it is that ability to work with the US and EU and European partners that has held the peaceful so many years and each of the piece in years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to come. Prior to the election the Labour Party promised to reduce energy bills by £300. Yet on their watch, energy bills are about to increase energy bills are about to increase by almost £300. May I ask, is the failure to keep that promise a consequence of government incompetency or have the Labour Party been caught lying to the public?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public? Mr Speaker, we are very proud of the fact that we are pushing forward for energy independence which will for energy independence which will keep our bills lower. He knows very well what my position is. I note that again he's very quiet on the SNP record. I will tell you why, just this week we have seen the attainment gap widening in Scotland. People leaving schools with no qualifications rising, those from deprived areas going to work falling. Instead of playing the politics of grievance they need to take responsibility for their record.
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
None Portrait Ministerial statement: UK Government Response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report
-

Motion. Statement. Let us come to the statement on the Housing, Communities and Local Government. Secretary of State. Secretary of State.
12:37
Angela Rayner Portrait Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP, Deputy Prime Minister (Ashton-under-Lyne, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Mr Speaker. This government accepts that the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry must be the catalyst for long lasting systemic change. All members of the House, past and present, will have shared my anger over its shocking findings. The inquiry chair and his dedicated team uncovered damning evidence of political, corporate, and individual failings going back decades. These led to the loss of 72 innocent lives. 18 of them were children.

On that terrible night in June 2017. Madam Deputy Speaker, it was a deadly betrayal, a national tragedy that must never happen again. I will repeat today what the Prime Minister said in September, two bereaved families, the survivors, and those in the immediate Grenfell community, some of whom are with us today the gallery, on behalf of the government, the British state, and those responsible, I am very sorry. The inquiry report made 58 recommendations, of which 37 were directed at the government.

The government accepts the findings of the report will take forward all the recommendations. Our response published today addresses each in turn and goes further. To set out our wider reforms of social housing and on the construction sector. As we make these vital changes, we will publish quarterly report on the progress and update Parliament annually. The government is open to scrutiny and will remain accountable for its actions. We will prioritise residents and protect their interests. And make sure that industry builds safe homes.

And provide clearer accountability and enforcement. To have anyone anywhere living in an unsafe home is one person too many. That will be our guiding principle. And must be that of anyone who wants to build or care for our homes. That will be an important part of the legacy of Grenfell. Madam Deputy Speaker, for nearly 8 years, despite their pain, the bereaved survivors and members of the community have campaigned with determination, not wanting anyone to suffer as they have.

It is fair to say that the building system that we have today is not the same as the one that was justly criticised in the report. The one we had leading up to the tragic events this year. I am accepting the recommendations to professionalise fire engineers and assessors. To licence principle contractors and to review the role of building control. Where standards are clear and industry has clarity and certainty on how individuals and firms must behave. It encourages investor confidence.

This will improve the safety of residents, support the construction industry, and our mission to deliver economic growth. We have pledged to build 1.5 million homes over the Parliament. To tackle our country's acute housing crisis. Part of our Plan for Change to improve the lives of people across the country. It is vital that these future homes, as well as existing homes, are safe and of high quality. I welcome how some parts of the industry have stepped up to lead the necessary change, culture, and approach.

Madam Deputy Speaker, lest we forget, Sir Martin found that just about every institution and organisation charged with keeping the tower safe and protecting those who call it home failed. His most devastating conclusion was that every single death was avoidable. The inquiry uncovered serial incompetence and negligence. Complacency and inaction, and blatant dishonesty and greed. The organisations that failed included the government and regulators. The department that I now lead, which failed to act on the risks and ignored, delayed, or disregarded matters affecting the safety of life.

And the manufacturing companies including Kingspan and cell tax, the report found that they acted with systemic dishonesty. And they mis-sold and marketed them. The disgraceful mercenary behaviour put profits before people and exploited the regulatory regime to evade accountability with fatal consequences. To my disgust and consequences. To my disgust and their shame, some have shown little remorse and have refused to even help fix the building safety crisis that they did so much to create.

Companies must be held to account for their role in Grenfell. The Parliamentary's to the Cabinet office is announcing today that she will use new powers under the procurement act to investigate Kingspan, and the owners at the time and other organisations. I expect swift, decisive action, and will ensure progress is reported. But we must do more to make sure that the right rules are in place. To this day, critical gaps persist in our construction products. Only with rigourous reform will be transform the culture that allowed the tragedy to happen.

To achieve this, we are also publishing today a construction also publishing today a construction products reform Green Paper. It will help us cut out the rocks in the sector and allow competence to take root. Safety will come first in a culture of responsibility will prevail. We will celebrate those that lead the way, and those that fall short will suffer the consequences. In the future, rogue companies will be held to account. Our Green Paper sets out our ideas for how prison time for executives who break the rules and unlimited fines where safety is put at risk.

We will do whatever it takes. Across the sector, we know that there is appetite for change. That change is appetite for change. That change is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I pay tribute to the bereaved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I pay tribute to the bereaved families and their resilience. New legislation has passed which members of this government also supported and that has made our public realm and that has made our public realm more secure. Everyone is safe thanks to the Building Safety Act. It set to the Building Safety Act. It set new standards for construction of residential buildings in England. It introduced the Building Safety introduced the Building Safety Regulator and provisions for Regulator and provisions for All people living in flats now know that the entrance door, external walls and structure of their homes are in the scope of fire risk assessments, thanks to the Fire Safety Act.

There are new duties for owners and managers of buildings and blocks of flats. The Social Housing Act makes sure that landlords are held to account. I have challenged the Royal Bor of Kensington and Chelsea to demonstrate how they have changed by becoming an exemplar landlord and local authority. I will be keeping a close eye on their progress. We will listen to their tenants to assess if they have succeeded. We are pushing ahead with the remediation acceleration plan to With dangerous cladding and when building owners fall short, we will act.

We are introducing regulations to improve the fire safety and evacuation of disabled and vulnerable residents in a high rise and higher risk residential As of April 1, ministerial responsibility for fire functions will move from the Home Office to my department, in line with the recommendations of the enquiry we bring responsibility for fire safety into a single government department. Madam Deputy Speaker, people are at the front and centre of our response with regard to safety. The bereaved and the survivors and members of the grand full community are still waiting for the results they deserve and justice must be done.

The ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation is among the biggest They have the full support of this government. In September the Prime Minister rightly said this tragedy posed questions about what social justice means in Britain today. Whether the voices of working class people, those with disabilities, those of colour are ignored or dismissed. We will not be that country. We will be a country where decent housing, security, safety and peace of mind are shared by all and not just the privileged few. The lessons of this enquiry should not have taken a tragedy to be unearthed.

We will honour the memory of those who lost their lives by bringing about meaningful change in their name. Which will make life better for everyone. We are under no illusions about the scale of the task at hand. The responsibility to deliver lasting change is the privilege of leadership. This will not be done by government alone. But we will put our voice and power into the service and the cause of the community as it continues to fight for it for nearly 8 years.

We will together bring about the transformational change people of this country deserve. Madam Deputy
12:49
None Portrait
-

Speaker, it is with admiration for their spirit and determination to honour it that I commend this statement to the house. statement to the house. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advanced sight of her statements and advanced sight of her statements and the government response to the phase two report. I echo the sentiments of the Deputy Prime Minister, shared across this house. The tragedy across this house. The tragedy claimed 72 innocent lives. 50 for adults.

18 children. It will always remain a scar on our national conscience. I thank Sir Martin and his team for their work. I join with the Deputy Prime Minister in the Deputy Prime Minister in offering my deepest apologies to the bereaved, the survivors and the community for the failures that led to that horrific night in June 2017. A night we all remember where we were. I thank them for their constructive campaigning. The findings of the enquiry, decades of systemic failure, dishonesty and negligence are a damning indictment of successive governments, regulators and industry.

The response of the government with the acceptance of all of the recommendations is a step forward and I do welcome the commitment to action. The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one department are long overdue reforms. Also the focus on professionalising fire engineers and reforming the construction sector, as the enquiry exposed this as riddled with systemic dishonesty. The Green Paper on construction products reform is a promising start but must deliver real accountability.

Unlimited fines and prison sentences for rogue executives and where appropriate government officials cannot remain just rhetoric. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, ambition must be matched by urgency and scrutiny. Nearly 8 years
12:51
Kevin Hollinrake Portrait Kevin Hollinrake MP (Thirsk and Malton, Conservative)
-
-
have passed since the Grenfell Tower disaster yet thousands still live in buildings with unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects. Can I ask other fire safety defects. Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, although I do welcome the acceptance of the I do welcome the acceptance of the majority of the recommendations, can I ask why she has not accepted the recommendation for the single recommendation for the single regulator to oversee testing and certification of construction products, leaving this instead with conformity assessment bodies? Can I remind her that the Building Research Establishment itself is a conformity assessment body and was strongly criticised for having its own conflicts of interest? The remediation acceleration plan is welcome but the target of assessing all buildings by July 2025 and completing works by 2027 rely heavily on developers stepping up voluntarily.

What actions will she take if they do not comply? Will she work to deliver solutions for non- qualified leaseholders and those at risk as a consequence of other fire safety defects? This House needs concrete assurances that no resident will be left behind. I question the phased approach to implementation, stretching beyond 2028. Justice delayed is justice denied and this community has waited long enough for change. Why must they potentially wait for another Parliamentary term for the full delivery? What discussions has the Leader of the House had with Parliamentary colleagues on establishing a joint committee to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the enquiry? What is the timetable for new publicly available records on all recommendations since 2024? On social housing, the extension of legislation and new standards are positive but the government must go further to address the wide remit.

Resident voices were ignored. It must be more than a panel and a campaign. We need legal teams to make sure landlords act upon concerns swiftly. Finally, justice demands accountability. The Metropolitan Police investigation has our full support. But the pace Those who profited from cutting corners or who were criminally negligent must face consequences. Not just fines but criminal charges where evidence allows. Grenfell Tower must be a watershed. A legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. Can I make clear our commitment to working with her and her government on a cross-party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

basis to meet that promise? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the shadow secretary of state his comments and the way in which he made them. I genuinely hope we can work together to continue we can work together to continue this work. I recognised in my opening statement the work of the opening statement the work of the previous government with the Building Safety Act and other measures. We will continue to work measures. We will continue to work in that vein. I hope the honourable member recognises some of the work we are doing already and have brought forward.

Significant brought forward. Significant legislation around social tenancy. Empowering tenants and the writers rights builds and how to protect leaseholders and remediation acceleration. We will deliver these legislative changes as soon as parliamentary time allows. The legislation commitments are detailed in the plan and that will include creating certainty for buildings that need remediating and who is responsible for them and make obligations to complete remediation
12:55
12:56
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
Chair of the select committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to start by recognising that I want to start by recognising that I want to start by recognising that today is yet another exhausting day for the loved ones of the victims of Grenfell Tower. They are still having to fight for justice almost 8 years later. I welcome the response years later. I welcome the response of the Secretary of State. I look forward to the Select Committee scrutinising the proposals for the scrutinising the proposals for the construction regulator and the Green construction regulator and the Green Paper.

But if we are honest, what the Secretary of State has outlined will not tackle the root cause of the systematic ignorance of concerns of tenants. The toxic stigma which is at the heart of our social housing sector. Can the Secretary of State outline what steps she has taken to make sure tenants have a voice in the social housing sector and when they raise concerns? We must never forget that 41% of the victims of Grenfell Tower were disabled. A figure which does underline the collective failure of the system to protect those in need.

The commitment of the government to residential evacuation plans for disabled people in high-rise buildings is a welcome step forward. But I would be grateful for clarity on how the government intends to make residential rules enforceable if the responsible person does not identify the vulnerable resident. I'm pleased funding has been allocated for this in the social sector. But the reality is disabled people living all kinds of housing. Can she give a commitment in her response that disabled people in the private rented sector get the same access for an evacuation plan to access for an evacuation plan to those in the social sector? I will close by saying that none of the families and the galleries should be here today.

This tragedy happened in the holy month of Ramadan in 2017. As it approaches this week, a time that should be dedicated to reflection, healing, togetherness, too many families are still fighting for justice. No family member present today should have to spend their time demanding accountability when they should focus on recovering from that trauma. I pay tribute to their efforts and pledged to continue to be a voice for them in their fight for justice without any more delay.
12:58
Angela Rayner Portrait Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP, Deputy Prime Minister (Ashton-under-Lyne, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the chair of the housing committee, I know that my honourable friend is committed to social housing tenants. The system as she has our client has not been fit for purpose and these failings contributed to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. We are driving up standards in social housing with stronger regulation and enforcement measures. Strengthening the voices of tenants and access to redress. This will make sure landlords are held accountable for the quality of homes and services they provide.

At the heart of the new regime is a requirement all landlords treat tenants with fairness and respect. Social landlords need to understand the information and support the diverse needs of tenants, including those arising from protected characteristics and language barriers. The government will regulate as soon as possible on social housing provider funding made available for residential people. We will directly regulator to set standards and conduct of staff to make sure tenants are treated with respect. At national level, we have extended the residential panel to make sure tenants voices are heard.

We will keep a new regulatory system under review. We will evaluate its effectiveness by 2028 to make sure it delivers the improvements needed. We will set out further measures to strengthen residential voices in the long-term strategy later this year. long-term strategy later this year. long-term strategy later this year.
13:00
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrats stand firmly with the bereaved and their family members as well as the immediate community, friends, neighbours, and connected with the 72, including children. Any steps regarding the changes to the building will be a deeply personal matter for that community. And any decisions regarding the future of the building I know the Secretary of State will approach with due respect for the local community, survivors, and victims. We welcome the government's decision to work with the Grenfell Memorial commission, to design a memorial, and I urge the government to approach the discussions with respect and sympathy.

Liberal Democrats are also concerned that as we approached eight years on from Grenfell there are still thousands of people in the UK living in buildings with dangerous cladding. The Grenfell inquiry provided in detail about the facts leading up to the tragedy including underlying causes of the fire, where mistakes were made, and the response of the public and emergency services. And with regard to the recommendations, I refer the house to my Register of Interests as a member of the Royal into.

There are lessons to be learnt for every authority in the land. We recognise the previous government provided funding to start this process which is now being allocated, to deal with cladding. Now it is time to accelerate that vital work to make all buildings say. We are concerned that too many developers are passing the costs of remediation onto tenants and leaseholders which puts them at serious financial risk. Democrats endorse all 57 recommendations from Sir Martin which includes creating a legally enforceable order to make premises safe on pain of criminal sanction.

We need to take further steps to guard against commercial interests overriding safety as they did both in that testing and Materials and in the enforcement of Building Regulations. We would like to see more done to ensure the commerciality will not shockingly and disgracefully once again override the interests of safety. It is time to invest in housing stock so cladding is dealt with, it is time for justice for the victims or those living in unsafe housing for Liberal Democrats stand ready to work cross party to do so.
13:03
13:04
Joe Powell Portrait Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)
-
-
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her statement today on the Prime Minister that for his statement on September 4 that made clear that the lessons from Grenfell are central to this government commission. Today is another painful step towards truth, justice, and change for the bereaved families of the 72 people who lost their lives and Grenfell, the survivors, and the community in my constituency. Many of whom have joined us here today and I pay tribute to their strength and resilience.

The fight for justice, now nearly 8 years long, continue after today and every day until we have criminal prosecutions and true accountability for those responsible. Including those companies reference and inquiry reports. I know the government has looked seriously at the inquiry recommendations welcome the commitment to meaningful change. But it does remain the case that recommendations from public inquiries too often fail to be implemented. Indeed if the lessons from previous fires had been learnt including Lakanal House in 2009, their lives would have been saved.

This was avoidable. Can that Deputy Prime Minister Shaw me that the government will consider a strong mechanism of oversight to ensure accountability for implementing what has been set out so it lasts beyond any one government and leads to change? Will she also provides further detail on how she plans to ensure accountability for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Given their culpability before, during, and after the fire. And the desperately needed change in their culture and the improvement in the quality of services today in our community.
13:06
Angela Rayner Portrait Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP, Deputy Prime Minister (Ashton-under-Lyne, Labour)
-
-
Can I thank my honourable Friend and pay tribute to the way in which he has constructively challenged on behalf of his constituents. I know this report has great personal significance of his constituent and I pay tribute to his dedicated work as an advocate and calling for truth, justice, and change for the Grenfell community. I agree that oversight of the government response is essential, and all public inquiries. The system needs to be improved and we are taking forward inquiry recommendations on oversight.

We will create a publicly accessible record on both the UK, recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024. We will consider making this a legal requirement as part of a wider review of the inquiry framework. To the Grenfell inquiry recommendations, my department will publish quarterly progress update on gov.uk until they have all been delivered. We will report annually to Parliament to enable members to scrutinise our progress and hold us to account. In terms of my honourable friend's comments with regard to the Council, the council failed in some of its most fundamental duties to keep residents safe, to listen to their concerns and respond effectively when disaster struck.

They were right to apologise but it is clear more must be done. I've welcomed the council's commitment to improvement and culture change and I've set my challenge to the leader of the council to ensure that these improvements are a reality felt by the councils residents. I will continue to engage and keep an eye on the progress.
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:33
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Can I thank the deputy premised for what you said today and how she said it? I hope that families of the survivors of Grenfell Tower have heard what we have to say and find some reassurance in the acceptance of all of the recommendations. I have residents in my constituency of Surrey Heath who are today trapped in just the latest chapter of the fire safety scandal. Residents who have EWS one forms, similarly signed off by the notorious now fire safety engineer who find themselves unable to sell their properties, unable to remortgage, but even more fundamentally, who don't know whether they are living in a dangerous building or not.

And in neighbouring buildings built exactly the same time or signed off or had the EWS forms signed off by a different safety engineer have only been stripped of their cladding. I'm incredibly grateful to hear that you have accepted recommendations 15 and 16 and that you were looking at a professionalisation of the fire safety industry, greater regulation and a commitment to greater recruitment because we know those are some of the issues that have underpinned the EWS one scandal, but can urge you and your team please think about emergency measures, and it can't just be right that we overlook the EWS one forms people we have because you don't know whether they are living in safe buildings are not and cannot overlook those forms.

We have to fundamentally rapidly reassess the safety of those buildings in order to allow them to be sellable or remediate it again. Thank you. Thank you.
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:39
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:46
13:46
Sarah Coombes Portrait Sarah Coombes MP (West Bromwich, Labour)
-
-
I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a review of certain offences relating to vehicle registration marks and for connected purposes. And I thank the Minister for being here at this debate today. When I got elected I didn't expect to be a road safety campaigner. Since I become MP, family after family have come to me having lost a husband or a mother. Or a son. Three other peoples dangerous driving.

Our rates are used by millions of people every day. They are vital to our communities, economy and to keep us connected. And most people drive safely. And just trying to take their kids to school, get to work or do the weekly shop. There are some selfish people who use our rights as racetracks. Who care nothing about risking other people's lives and who are evading capture using dodgy ghost number plates. It's one of the central missions for our Labour government to take back our streets and restore a sense of safety in our communities.

We've invested millions to fill in potholes to reduce danger, and hope we can now take action on something that is making our roads unsafe for all. The issue of so-called ghost plates was first brought to my attention when I was standing in Kendrick way, a busy a road in my constituency with our local lease and crime Commissioner and the Secretary of State for Transport. We be talking about the nightmare car races that cause health local residents on Friday and Saturday nights when as many as 50 cars converge on the area to race up and down this long straight road.

The Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Foster and local roads policing experts explained that it was increasingly hard to catch these dangerous drivers due to the rise in ghost plates or stealth plates. That was the first time I had ever heard of ghost plates, and I believe that today is the first time they've ever been raised in this House. There has been little mainstream media coverage about ghost plates up until now, but go on to Tokmak or Instagram and I can tell you they are widely known.

I'd like to thank are widely known. I'd like to thank camera commissioners, and chief inspector and West Midlands police for their advice and hard work over the years bringing this issue to light. So what is it ghost or a stealth plate? These ghost plates look like normal numberplates to the human I, but they have a reflective coating on them or they've been interfered with in some way which makes them unreadable to the infrared police speed cameras on our roads.

If you Google ghost plates, you can buy one for as little as £30, making the vehicle invisible to the automated recognition cameras that police used to stop speeding and keep our roads safe. These website selling ghost plates are full of disclaimers, reassuring you that they are perfectly legal as long as you don't use them on the roads. But the fact is, these plates are being used on our roads by people who want to speed around freely, run red lights and much much worse. And right now, if you've got a ghost plate and you speed past the camera at 100 miles an hour, the likelihood is you won't be caught.

It is illegal to use these plates but the current consequences of being caught with one are far too small. At the moment, the penalty for a driving with a ghost play is just £100 fine. No points. No driving ban, just £100 first and that's if you are caught. That's less than you get for a speeding ticket, so for those who want to drive recklessly around Harrow roads can make -- or commit even worse crimes, why would you when the penalty is so small? The scale of ghost bikes is not yet known, although we know there are issues with client plates and wider issues.

One study found around one in 15 drivers may already be using anti- ANPR technology, however among some groups it could be even higher. One police exercise conducted in London examined more than 1,000 taxi private hire vehicles and found 40% of those vehicles had ghost plates. Wolverhampton council my honourable friend is here now, is one of the local authority is taking a lead on this issue and they are working with police to use new types of cameras to find and punish the drivers using these ghost plates.

Rochdale trading standards have also been pioneers in combating these plates. These organisations work but this is truly organisations work but this is truly a national problem. I worry these ghost plate supplies are making all of our roads less safe. In the West Midlands thousand people are killed or injured on our roads each year. That's 30,000 people across the UK. I've been working with the charity who helped my constituents when they suffered terrible losses. Like Diane whose husband was killed by a driver on her phone.

And family in Albury who lost their grandmother and mother he was hit by a car that sped away. A couple of weeks ago the RAC found that almost half of UK police forces have caught motorists driving more than 90 miles an hour on 30 mile in our roads. West Midlands police found the driver going a hundred on a 30 mile an hour road. If drivers using a ghost plate, then most current police cameras will struggle to identify the car and catch and punish the driver., Police and local authorities are getting wise to these plates and investing in new technology to catch them.

Right now it's too easy to buy one of these ghost plates and the consequences of having one are far too soft. And there is no consequence for the companies who sell these online with these disclaimers about not being able to use them on the roads, when they know full well that's exactly what they being used for. This bill calls for a review of the penalties for ghost plates, and I think we need to see fines of thousand pounds as well a six points on your licence.

The current fine of £100 is hardly a deterrent, but £1000 fine, the threat of six penalty points, potentially even vehicle seizure and licence disqualification, those would be ways to clamp down on the use and supply of ghost plates. This would not only make our roads safer potential our rates can be used to carry out crime. This also speaks to something brighter about the immense importance -- wider about the immense importance of a little bit of plastic which is a numberplate. This bit of plastic upholds the rules of our roads from traffic laws and speeding fines to cover insurance, Railtrack -- road tax and bustling.

It also allows police to track cars fleeing crimes and moving cars to move stolen goods for the yet the bit of plastic is removable, modifiable, clinical and honest entirely unregulated. The humble numberplate as camera Commissioner called it. The national camera system used to make all our roads safe is being undermined by people using dodgy and ghost plates. To conclude, it should be a basic rightful of us to feel safe as we walk, cycle and drive along our streets, but the reality is too many for stone.

That's why the McGovern has committed to publishing a great strategy, safety strategy which is the first in a decade. The majority of drivers and West Brom and run the whole country just want to get from A to B safely. But there are a select minority of people who think they are above the law and that by using a ghost plate they can get away with running red lights, drink-driving, speeding and much much worse. It cannot be right that these drivers are not facing the consequences of their actions and are creating so much danger for everyone else.

So I urge the government to consider this bill in their road safety strategy. The drivers using these ghost plates have gone under the radar for too long, but now they've been rumbled,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and it's time to crack down on them. The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of bring in the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. He will prepare

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and bring the bill? Chris blower, Antonia Bance,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris blower, Antonia Bance, Sureena Brackenridge, Sonia Kumar, Shaun Davies, Gurinder Josan, Jacob Shaun Davies, Gurinder Josan, Jacob Collier, Sarah Edwards, Paul Waugh, Rachel Taylor, Leigh Ingham and myself. Keep Keep it Keep it straight Keep it straight now. Keep it straight now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Vehicle registration review bill. Second reading what day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second reading what day? Friday second of March. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday second of March. -- Now motion B to on business of the House, ministered to move?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Me formally. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. 7 o'clock motion, ministered to me formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Me formally. We don't actually need you, thank you very much anyway. It's myself. You all very keen to crack on. We You all very keen to crack on. We now go on to the debate for this afternoon. I will let the frontbenchers quickly shuffled over. We have ours to continue to be We have ours to continue to be excited, folks. Ours. We now come to the Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition on family businesses.

The Speaker has not selected the amendments, and I called Mel Stride to move the Motion.
13:56
Mel Stride Portrait Rt Hon Mel Stride MP (Central Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. And I beg to move the Motion on the order paper. In the last general election, the party opposite, now the government told us that they aspire to become the natural party of business. The natural party of business. An absurd suggestion, given what has happened over the last seven short months. As absurd perhaps as the Business Secretary claiming to be a qualified lawyer. Or absurd perhaps as the Attorney-General claiming to be a patriotic lawyer.

Or absurd perhaps as the Prime Minister claiming to be anything other than a lawyer. The economy has tanked. Inflation recently spiked at 3%. It is to go still further higher. It was 2% on the day of the general election, a legacy that we bequeath to the party opposite. Borrowing is up, substantially up on the forecasts the OBR produced at the last budget. And growth has been killed stone dead. Growth that the Bank of England tells us will grow, an economy that will grow at half the rate it had originally suggested.

It is no wonder that all of the business confidence surveys show confidence crashing through the floor. As a result of what this government is doing. Businesses laying off jobs, businesses putting up prices, businesses reducing investment, businesses sometimes having to put themselves up for sale or even worse, going under. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Just in that specific point, local business person, businessman actually wrote to me and said he'd spent over 50 years building his engineering business from the ground up, only to now face from the ground up, only to now face the possibility that his life's work could be dismantled due to the could be dismantled due to the unfair tax burden. Does my right honourable friend agree with me why on earth would anybody want to start a business in the current climate that has been created by the benches

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite? The noble Lady is absolutely right, and we see it there in the surveys to which I refer. Business confidence had virtually an all-time low. And of course, before this whirlwind of disaster visited us, we had a calmer time during the general election. A Labour Party on best behaviour with business. A Labour Party with a manifesto that sought to reassure business, indeed express explicitly ruled out the possibility of an increase in national insurance. A Labour Party that was on the prawn cocktail circuit, there was countenancing canapes and carp.

The breathy seduction of the previous shadow chancellor. The Business Secretary hopping about in the background, dispensing free legal advice to whoever cared to listen. With Labour, everything seems possible. Business would be safe in their tender hands. But it wasn't. Trust was destroyed. The wrong decisions were taken. And why? Because the Frontbench opposite is not a jot of real-world business experience sitting there at all. In fact around the Cabinet table, less than half of those present had any experience in the private sector This is the most antibusiness government in modern political history.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the British chamber of Commerce in its surveys shows tax is now the number one concern of businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses says in the last quarter of the last year business confidence hit the lowest level ever recorded in their survey saved for the pandemic. It is now just about the only way small businesses are being created today is due to the shrinkage of larger ones. Firms crushed by the wrong policies. Take national insurance, this measure has not even commenced as we know it.

It comes in April. And yet it is already driving down employment. It is already driving up prices and inflation. It is a ticking tax timebomb. Waiting to go off in early April. It affects the lowest paid the hardest. Those on part-time work bear the brunt of this measure. Those sectors that are labour-intensive, hospitality UK found three quarters of one million more jobs would be subject to national insurance as a direct effect of this government's plan. And an extra 20p on the pint for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brewers. I thank the honourable gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. I am pleased he has expressed concern people on lower wages. In that case I hope you will welcome from this Dispatch Box the decision of this Labour government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision of this Labour government to increase the living wage by 6.7% from April this year. This is the party who increased

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is the party who increased the personal allowance and doubled it between 2010 and the present day taking millions of people out of tax altogether and the party who brought altogether and the party who brought in the national living wage. We have done a great deal to support particularly the lowest paid in our society. When it comes... I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor. Isn't the point here it is the culmination of all the is the culmination of all the changes the Labour government have been putting in. This government has not derailed national insurance, it may need to do so in the future but may need to do so in the future but the key point is it is all of these ramifications, the living wage change, the cuts and the Business change, the cuts and the Business Relief, the red tape being put in with the new Employment Rights Bill and the National insurance contributions all going up.

It is contributions all going up. It is that toxic concoction that is going to kill of growth. It is a problem to kill of growth. It is a problem we have. Does he agree? Four my honourable friend is absolute right. It is not as if the government was not warned about these issues. The OBR in its report makes it extremely clear. Whilst for example 25 billion is the headline figure to be raised with National Insurance contribution changes, the action on that is far less than that because -- the actual net is far less than that because it is far less when you tax jobs.

You do not need to spend a decade at the Bank of England to know that. National insurance increases lead to fewer jobs, lower wages, higher prices. This government of course piling on the regulation with its Employment Rights Bill. We know that increases the risk of employing people. At a time when the employment market itself is softening. I will in a moment. And putting an end to flexible working practices which many, benefit many businesses but also suit many other people who benefit from them particularly younger people and those who are more elderly.

Given this it is astonishing this Chancellor has launched a tax raid

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on family businesses. I give way. Thank you. I do thank the shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I do thank the shadow Chancellor forgiving way. Could he spell out the specific rights in the spell out the specific rights in the Employment Rights Bill that he believes and his party believes should not be afforded to people in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should not be afforded to people in this country? For example he asks a very fair

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For example he asks a very fair question, to be put in a situation where employers will be fearful of taking on new hires because of the consequences that may follow, to have a situation where trade unions are going to be advantaged in the way the bill suggests, the trade union paymasters who support... Perhaps the honourable gentleman but many of his colleagues certainly. The minimum service standards, legislation we brought in this bill as I understand it will overturn, none of these things are going to be good for jobs.

They will not be gopher people searching for employment, they will not be good at this Mrs and they will not be good for the UK. For the UK economy. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am happy to declare interest. I am a member of many proud trade am a member of many proud trade unions. My declaration is free for all to see. I very much enjoyed the all to see. I very much enjoyed the shadow Chancellor's answer to my question but perhaps I could pose it question but perhaps I could pose it again taking a lesson from his own lead and he might want to answer it this time. What are the specific rights in the Employment Rights Bill rights in the Employment Rights Bill he and his party oppose? It is in the motion to say the Employment Rights Bill should be stopped so Rights Bill should be stopped so what are the rights in that bill he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposes working people having? I have already answers as he knows and to paraphrase the leader knows and to paraphrase the leader of his own party, I have already answered the honourable gentleman's questions. But I note his serial offence of being a member of several offence of being a member of several trade unions. At the moment. Good for him to have disclosed that. The changes to Business Property Relief changes to Business Property Relief are going to see the breakup of many are going to see the breakup of many family firms.

The government will say of course it will only have an impact on the wealthiest estates because there is the £1 million because there is the £1 million threshold. But how many of those companies are going to have that cash availability to that money to cash availability to that money to The value for many businesses lies in their assets. Liquidating those assets to pay those liabilities, those kind of liabilities given those kinds of assets are often instrumental to the working of that firm is an absurdity.

We also know changes will damage businesses ability to borrow against assets whether it is a sort of Damocles hanging over the head by way of a potential future inheritance tax. Liability. -- Inheritance tax liability. Research by CIE economics family business UK suggests this policy may actually not even raise any money. Of those firms that are going to be impacted the average company, those company said on average they would be investing 17% less in their business as a consequence of this measure.

In fact 15% of those businesses that would be impacted said they would sell their business altogether. The rules of course are going to be complex. There will be plenty of red tape, there will be legal advice to be taken from solicitors. Yes real ones. There will be some people who will pay through dividends. On which they will already have been taxed. So they will be taxed twice attacks on tax as we know is the Labour Party Way. Madam Deputy Speaker, the long established family brewery and pub operator in the North West has said the family business tax would quote, inevitably reduce future investment in the company.

But he goes on to say something else that is important and I quote, it would also place our business at a considerable disadvantage to our competitors who tend to be listed or owned by private equity, sometimes overseas. And so it is that British institutions which in some cases have been in the same family for decades or indeed even centuries may end up shutting down or being forced to sell to foreign buyers as a result of this single reckless

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy. I will give way. I thank my honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend forgiving way. While Labour -- what Labour do not seem to understand is Labour do not seem to understand is every business starts with a -- an idea, hope, dream. The individual idea, hope, dream. The individual then puts every ounce of work they haven't building that business often

**** Possible New Speaker ****

haven't building that business often as a whole family endeavour for many generations. It is that, not as the economics and the jobs which Labour are destroying. My honourable friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is absolutely right. This is why the dearth of experience of entrepreneurship on the benches opposite really shows. We see it with Agricultural Property Relief as well, the family farm being broken up. Years and generations of people struggling, working hard, whatever the weather to grow those businesses, to provide the food we need is swept under by a stroke of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Treasury's pen. I give way full The Prime Minister was interviewed and said the reason for doing this to farmers was to be able doing this to farmers was to be able to give the NHS the money they might need. Only one week later a £10 million fund was there to support million fund was there to support the mental-health farmers has been the mental-health farmers has been the mental-health farmers has been taken away for -- taken away. How does that stick in the throat of the farmers when they are told not a priority, food security is not a priority, food security is not a priority and actually now they will not have the health service there in place despite the tax they are now going to ensue?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The treatment of our farmers by this government has been absolutely atrocious. Right before the last General Election, the Shadow Secretary of State for DEFRA, now the Secretary of State for DEFRA looked the NFU in the eye and told them at least on the measure of them at least on the measure of inheritance tax farmers had nothing to fear from the future Labour to fear from the future Labour government. And yet the point my honourable friend makes is absolutely telling. They cared absolutely telling.

They cared nothing about any of them. Within a matter of months of coming into office they had already brought in their Agricultural Property Relief their Agricultural Property Relief changes. To the detriment of thousands of hard-working farmers up and down our country. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the right honourable member for giving way and I'd like to ask him whether it was also the concern for the well-being of our concern for the well-being of our farming communities and their mental health and the food security just discussed by members on those benches whether there was also a concern of yours when the Conservative government over 14 Conservative government over 14 years also sold our farmers down the river with dodgy trade deals with river with dodgy trade deals with Australia and New Zealand? Was that your concern then?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your concern then? Not at all. Order, shadow Chancellor response. The concern of yours would mean the chair so let's start of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today's business in good form. I think I should put on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I should put on the record you have a ways been very record you have a ways been very pro-farmers. -- Always been very pro-farmers and that should never be brought into question by anybody in this chamber. I have externally proud of our record of supporting farmers up and down the country. Ever since I came into this House in 2010 representing a highly rural 2010 representing a highly rural constituency right in the middle and beautiful Devon. There are many schemes and much support and much money and financial support and so on this government when it was in office should be very proud of.

Yes, I will give way. Here I thank him for giving way. I thought I would let him make some progress. It feels weird to hear a speech about the Conservative Party economy without Liz Truss being mentioned but we have trade deals mentioned on the benches opposite. Does he think the actions of Liz Truss, he cannot hear because you are shouting. Not you Madam Deputy Speaker, they are shouting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Interventions should be very short.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he think the policies of Liz Truss were good for business investment and confidence to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economy? The honourable gentleman may or may not be aware at the time of the may not be aware at the time of the mini-budget I was the chair of the Treasury Committee committee. I had a lot to say about what is being proposed before her. I had a lot to say at the time it happened. I had a say at the time it happened. I had a lot to say since then. All of that is a matter for the public record. If the honourable lady wants to intervene I'm very happy to give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have been invited to make an intervention so I will very quickly same whilst the honourable gentleman was reasonably outspoken on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mini-budget, the same cannot be said for his colleagues on the Frontbench. I have made the position extremely clear and what is very extremely clear and what is very clear is we actually left the last, the current government with an the current government with an excellent, no where it has all gone now? We left the party opposite with the fastest growing economy in the G7. We left the party opposite with a near-record level of employment. We left the party opposite with a near-record low level of unemployment.

We left the party opposite with 13 consecutive months of real wage growth and we left the party opposite with inflation having come down due to the Ukraine War, come down over 11% in October 2022 full down to two%. Bang on target on the day of the General Election. That is a decent inheritance. It has taken the party opposite seven short months to completely trash it. So we will take no lectures from the party opposite was but we have course -- party opposite.

But we have course will do things very differently and the reason we would be doing things differently as we recognise small businesses, family businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are the life and fire of our economy. But there is no life or fire in the Chancellor. Just tragic mistakes. And Miss collations. The sugar rush of borrowing and spending we saw in the last Budget further bloating the size of the state, forcing taxes ever upwards. The failure to grasp the nettle of productivity, giving into those trade union paymasters.

Above inflation rate wage settlements. With no strings attached whatsoever. And absolutely nothing to say from the party opposite on the issue of welfare. The Budget for which has been blooming out of control. When we were in government... I will in a moment. We reduced the welfare budget on my watch by £5 billion. budget on my watch by £5 billion. The only -- the OBR scored fewer people going onto long-term sickness and discipline benefits as a result of the reforms were brought in.

There was more to be delivered. We went into the last election with a clear plan to save a further £12 billion every year as a result of our welfare reform. Where has their zeal for welfare reform gone? From the government opposite. It has evaporated entirely. It was never there. I will just simply say if this government has the backbone to come forward with some serious proposals to deal with the welfare budget, such that on March 26 the Chancellor can come to that Dispatch Box in this House and say she is unwinding those national insurance increases then the opposition will I give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I notice on family businesses,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I notice on family businesses, but 96% of them are either once with no employees of a very small number, unaffected if not helped by the unaffected if not helped by the Dublin of the implant allowance. Only 4% of family businesses have claimed PPR, and most of them claimed PPR, and most of them unaffected. In the shadow chancellor can't name a single proposal under can't name a single proposal under the Employment Rights Bill. He apologised family businesses for the total irrelevance of his complaints

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today to the female talking? I thinking with great respect should get out a bit more and speak some of those businesses. Politics is about priorities. And for all their talk of being the natural party of business, the government is instead simply reaching for the socialist comfort blanket of tax, spend, borrow, and regulate. It hasn't worked before. It isn't working now. And it will never work. And is not the truth that this government is totally out of its depth? That businesses are reeling, and that we are all paying the price.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the order paper. And I call the Minister, James Murray.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

James Murray. Thank you. And my thanks to the shadow chancellor, The right honourable member the Central Devon for opening today's debate. The for opening today's debate. The opposition in the Motion today has set out a list of objections they have two decisions the government
14:18
James Murray Portrait James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
have two decisions the government has taken, or in the case of the measurements around points, decisions that shadow Minister's seem to have entirely imagined. While shadow Minister's may be able to list their objections, they are unable to take responsibility for the damage to our economy that they in government were responsible for. And crucially, they are unable to offer any credible alternative. Today's motion makes clearer than ever that the Conservatives have no vision, no ideas, and no plans to deliver the change that our country needs.

In contrast, Labour is the party with a plan for change. A plan to restore economic stability, boost investment and drive growth across the UK to put more money in people's pockets. We know that it is governments responsibility to provide stability, security, fiscal responsibility and to get unnecessary regulation out of the way when it stands in the way of growth. It is businesses, large and small, including family businesses and their workforces who will create jobs and will be the engines of growth in the economy.

When the pubs, shops, traders and services across the country, not only play an important role in all our lives but also drive economic growth. Those businesses and their workforces are the backbone of our economy and they need a government who will take the right decisions, even when they are difficult in the national interest to support our security and prosperity. And so let me start by briefly reminding the Conservative members opposite of the context in which those decisions have been made.

That context is of course the inheritance that this country faced after 14 years of the party opposite being in power. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... 2010, this Government had to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... 2010, this Government had to borrow £158 billion. Of course fast forward another decade, we have something for the pandemic where we had to borrow 400 billion. So on top of that, collectively that's a great big difficulty to be dealing with. Now I sat in this chamber five years Now I sat in this chamber five years ago when the pandemic happened, listening to all the interventions listening to all the interventions asking for more spending of money. This is the problem the Conservative government have dealt with.

Does he not agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentlemen said we had something for the pandemic. We also had a Prime Minister could -- called Liz Truss which had a pretty big impact on our economy. And I know the shadow chancellor distances himself from it. I would welcome intervention from his colleagues if they would love to come to Liz Truss's defence. I will give way. They are not seeking to intervene on me. Funny that, no intention to intervene. Perhaps in closing, one of the other shadow Minister's can refer to Liz Truss's record and defend that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The way I see it, the problem is Liz Truss with her budget was she didn't set out her workings. The problem with Rachel Reeves is she problem with Rachel Reeves is she did. And the country and the world doesn't believe it. That is far more doesn't believe it. That is far more detrimental to the situation we find ourselves in because she can't get out of that problem. That's the out of that problem. That's the difference between Liz Truss and Rachel Reeves.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rachel Reeves. Wow. I should let the honourable gentlemen intervene more often if he gentlemen intervene more often if he is going to say that the only problem with Liz Truss is that she didn't set out her workings. I think the problem was rather more fundamental than that. As people across this country will attest. But frankly, it is no wonder that members opposite want to bury their heads in the sand and try to pretend the last 14 years did not happen.

It was 14 years of mismanagement and decline along with jolts of disaster, digging ever deeper holes in our public services and economic resilience. It was there decisions that led to their resounding electoral loss last year, and their record in office that made the difficult decisions that we had a face on entering government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

necessary. In his usual courteous way he is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In his usual courteous way he is handling this debate, but taken back to something he said in his remarks which were hospitality business and pubs deliver economic growth. Can I say to him that there was a small say to him that there was a small pub chain in my constituency that are having to find 1/3 of their total turnover because of the total turnover because of the actions of this government, meaning actions of this government, meaning that they may have to close a venue which supports a small village in my constituency.

Is that the economic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

growth he thinks he is delivering? I thank him for his intervention, and with regards to the changes around employer National Insurance, which I assume is what he was referring to, I will come to that in a few moments in my remarks, but let me be absolutely clear about the context here, which is that no responsible government could have let things carry on the way they were. That was simply not a tenable situation, think numbers of the opposite party know that. And that is why at Autumn Budget we take difficult but necessary decisions on welfare, spending and tax.

And those decisions were vital steps to restoring economic instability, fixing the public finances, and supporting public finances. As I said earlier, whilst members opposite have taken every opportunity to say they oppose these choices, they have yet to offer any solutions of their own. Difficult decisions were necessary, and so let me set out why we made some of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

choices we did. I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving. The Labour Party manifesto said that The Labour Party manifesto said that by the year 28/29, they would increase spending by £9.5 billion a year. Why then did the budget increase it by that year by £76 billion, eight times more in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour manifesto said? As I'm sure the honourable member will know, upon entering government will know, upon entering government and speaking to Treasury officials about the state of the public finances, we had a £22 billion black hole which was known to shadow Minister's, ministers at the time that the OBR was not informed about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister might have noticed that there was a bigger gap between £9.5 billion that there was a bigger £9.5 billion that there was a bigger gap between £9,500,000,000.70 £6 billion than £22 billion. His answer billion than £22 billion. His answer was clearly ridiculous in the reason we are talking about these kinds of tax rises is not because of the £22 tax rises is not because of the £22 billion fictional blackhole but because of the decision to increase because of the decision to increase spending by eight times more than the Labour Party promised at the election.

Will he accept that or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not? The honourable members comments are clearly ridiculous if he thinks a £22 billion black was fictional. It has a real-time consequence. I'm going to make some progress. I've been very generous giving way, but he will know that his colleagues on his benches who were in government were aware of the in year spending pressures and they chose not to share it to the office of Budget responsibility and thereby not share it with the British people. That is the truth of what we inherited, and that's why we had to take difficult decisions.

I'm going to tender some of those difficult decisions which we had taken the budget last year because the opposition motion refers to decisions we took on Business Property Relief. I assure him the decision we took on Business Relief and agricultural property relief when not taken lightly. The government recognises the role these reliefs play completely and supporting small farms and family businesses. And that's why we chose to maintain these reliefs rather than abolishing them, meaning they maintain very significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what's available to others.

Indeed, the release will remain more generous than the last time they were changed. The changes we are making mean agricultural and Business Property Relief will be better targeted and fairer. According to the most recent data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. It's a similar picture for Business Property Relief where more than 50% of Business Property Relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. These data about the fact that the benefit of the existing 100% relief on business and agricultural assets has become heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates.

It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of the wealthiest claimants, particularly in light of the wider pressures on the public finances. And that's why we are changing how we target agricultural property relief and Business Property Relief from April this year. Next year. Individuals will still benefit from the 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. On top of this amount, there will be 50% relief, which means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20% rather than the standard 40%.

And of course this sits on top of the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spousal exemption and nil rate bands which apply more widely within the inheritance tax system. Hillside farm in my constituency

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hillside farm in my constituency run by Bob Milton is only 36 acres in total, which is a tiny farm, yet in total, which is a tiny farm, yet is going to be subject to these new taxes. So how can he say that only taxes. So how can he say that only 4% are going to be affected? Even the smallest farms my constituency

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are going to be hit by this. Just to correct the honourable gentleman, I didn't say that only 4% were going to be affected. We set out that around 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim agricultural property... Business property relief expect to be affected in 26/27. That means around three quarters of estates will be unaffected and will not pay any more inheritance tax. All of the data on this has been set out in a letter from the Chancellor to the Treasury Select Committee and if the honourable gentleman looks at that document, he will see some of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stats. I will give way. Of the first 500 so you just explained will be ones that have to pay this inheritance tax. You have pay this inheritance tax. You have any idea what the number of those any idea what the number of those are small businesses compared to the larger estates you are seeking to challenge in this legislation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

challenge in this legislation? The date I refer to is based on claims data, and this is an important point which comes up frequently when we have debates around agricultural property relief and Business Property Relief because and Business Property Relief because if one were to consider assets that are owned by farmers or by other business owners, the actual value of the asset doesn't give you a guide to what claim might be made against inheritance tax because that would depend on the ownership structure and content that might be owned or what inheritance happened early in people's lives and so on.

So the only data which can give you an indication about what impact these changes will be having from April 2026 is the claims data. The data I referred to earlier and are referred to in response to the honourable gentleman is the claims data that HMRC has, real claims data. That's the date on which we make decisions around this policy, and that's the data which informs some of the Chancellor's statistics in response to the Treasury Select Committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which the honourable lady might like to consider. I think in for giving way. In Northern Ireland, the agriculture Department has indicated that almost Department has indicated that almost half the farms will be impacted by the inheritance tax. 75% of all dairy farms will be impacted. By the inheritance tax. When will he start inheritance tax. When will he start to speak with and listen to industry leaders? Because quite frankly, the leaders? Because quite frankly, the meeting last week was an outrage, and he needs to set and listen to and he needs to set and listen to the industry leaders who know the industry and are speaking on behalf of real farmers on the ground who are going to be impacted by this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inheritance tax. The honourable lady referred to meetings that I held last week with representatives both of UK-wide organisations and indeed those who organisations and indeed those who represent other nations within the represent other nations within the Sometimes we listen and we disagree. That is the situation we have found ourselves in. At that meeting where ourselves in. At that meeting where we listened to concerns and we had a different approach. I have been setting out today to date exactly why we have taken the decision that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we have. I thank the Minister for giving way. I recently did a survey of all of the farms in my constituency in South Devon and 85% of the people who responded to that survey said they will be affected by this they will be affected by this inheritance tax. Many because of the cost of land inside Devon, practically all farms are going to practically all farms are going to be subject to this. When will the government listen to this evidence we are collecting from our farmers.

we are collecting from our farmers. Your assessment that only 25% of farmers are going to be affected is actually not correct?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually not correct? I thank the honourable lady for her intervention. I think it is important to emphasise the correct data to work out the impact these changes will have his the claims data. The claim status what is available to HMRC. That is the basis on which we have established how many farms, how many assets, how many estates are likely to be affected by the change. I will take one more intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I think the point Madam Deputy Speaker we are trying to make Deputy Speaker we are trying to make is by only looking at one dataset the challenge here is that the Minister is not looking at the Minister is not looking at the bigger picture. We have spoken a lot about farmers but the Business about farmers but the Business Property Relief is about the whole of the business community. And so will he not go away and have another will he not go away and have another look at this and take account of all of the evidence that hopefully he has been listening to since the announcement of this reckless policy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just the members who have not understood etiquette. You cannot wander into a debate when someone is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on their feet and try and intervene. You need to try and -- you need to take part in the whole debate. Thank you. I returned to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I returned to the point I made several times today which is the way to understand how which is the way to understand how policy in relation to Agricultural Property Relief and business property relief or work is to look at actual claims data. Because that at actual claims data. Because that is how to understand the claims as they relate to individuals estates. The overall value of farms or the The overall value of farms or the overall value of businesses do not tell you exactly what the estate value is going to be through an individual claim.

That is the correct way to approach it. I will make some progress because I have given way many times on this particular section of the speech and I have plenty more to get you. I am sure there are other members who would like to contribute. Depending on people's individual circumstances, a couple be able to pass on up to £3 million to their children or grandchildren free of any inheritance tax at all. If owners pass on their assets more than seven years before death then no inheritance tax will be due that -- Dubai that.

This can be paid over 10 years interest free in most circumstances where it is due. This dance is a benefit that is not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system recognise as evidenced today the reforms to inheritance tax generate strong views. The reforms of these views is necessary given the fiscal challenge which confronts our society and it is a fair approach that helps with public finances and put them back on a sustainable footing. I will make some progress. I will move on if I may.

To other elements of the motion which have been put before us today around changes to National Insurance around changes to National Insurance contributions -- national employer contributions. Which we saw at the Budget. I recognise this change will have impact but asking employees to contribute law is the fairest way to restore fiscal's ability and provide essential services like the NHS with resources they desperately need. The rate of employment national insurance will increase from 13.8 to 15%. Whilst the per employee threshold at which employers start to pay national insurance, known as the secondary threshold will be reduced to £5000.

At the same time we firmly recognise the importance of small businesses and we will protect the smallest businesses in charity by more than doubling the Employment Allowance to N£10,500 was this means next year 865,000 employers pay no National Insurance contributions at all. More than half of employers will see no change or gain overall from this package. Employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance employers will of course be able to benefit from other employer national insurance Asian reliefs including hiring under 21's and under 25 apprentices were eligible.

This will broadly return revenues as proportionate of GDP to the level they were before the previous government cuts to employee and settler -- self implode national insurance but they do so in a way that is not resolving in high tackle people SpaceX. -- People's payslips. The motion also refer to business rates. We want to see local shops and high streets thriving again. Which means we must act to support the businesses behind them who have had to contend with changing consumer habits and significant economic headwinds in recent years.

Whilst online shopping is convenient and offers great variety the High Street brings people together. Hospitality businesses have played a key role in bringing people into town centres. However at present the business rates burden falls intensively on the sectors which is why business rates needs rebalancing. We therefore intend to permanently introduce lower tax rates the High Street, hospitality and leisure with rates below £500,000. This will benefit over 200 -- of the 280,000 properties. At the same time to make those tax cuts sustainable we will apply a higher rate of properties with rateable value of £500,000 and above.

That group represents less than one% of all properties. Because the majority of Dodge -- the majority of large distribution warehouses such as those used by online giants will take account ability and make way for High Street.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He comes back to commercial benefit and talks about going back benefit and talks about going back to clumping down on High Street

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giants, -- big commercial giants.... I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. Data is being for his intervention. Data is being set up by an agency which will give him some of the daters he has him some of the daters he has requested for sub I'm happy to write to him at the details which are available. The point is in order to be able to sustainably fund be able to sustainably fund permanent cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties below £500,000 we have to ensure it is paid for and that is why we are seeking to increase at the rate on those properties with a value of £500,000 or more to ensure it is sustainably funded.

That of course

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will come in from April 2026. I'm very grateful to my honourable friend the giving way. honourable friend the giving way. 20, he is talking about sustainable 20, he is talking about sustainable funding and I agree with him but what is fascinating is the last government had a Business Relief system which was another one -- system which was another one -- which was a good one but had nothing in the capital. They plan to cancel it entirely. That is why we are in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it entirely. That is why we are in the situation we are now. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right to point out under the previous covenant was a series of cliff edges and one-year extensions which provided most ability whatsoever to businesses trying to plan around investment, hiring or expansion decisions. That is why we have decided to extend the relief the previous government set due to end in April 2025 one further year

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before introducing permanently lower rates from April 2026. The Minister is talking about planning and actually I declare interests as a farmer's wife. He talks about 500 farmers that will be talks about 500 farmers that will be affected. None of us know he was affected. None of us know he was going to die next. -- Next year. We cannot know that. While 500 farmers may be affected, many many many many may be affected, many many many many more might be the ones who die or might be affected.

This is the might be affected. This is the source of the discrepancy between his figures of thinking how many will definitely be affected i.e. How many things will die and those who may be affected and cannot plan the businesses effectively and accordingly because the do not know. -- They do not know. The ardent as they could put their assets down a generation. You does not know if the younger generations are in a car

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accident and killed. He is placing attacks on tragedy. I was following the honourable lady's point which was to say lady's point which was to say clearly no-one knows how many cases and when inheritance tax will be due because people cannot predict the sad events and when they happen in sad events and when they happen in their lives. I think it is a clear their lives. I think it is a clear point in trying to work out what the changes to tax policy are going to be, the best source of data is to be, the best source of data is to look at the actual claims data those reliefs have stand -- as they stand reliefs have stand -- as they stand in the past.

We have looked at the data from HMRC about actual claims under Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief and that is what determines the data which we are trying to set out and around 520 estates are being affected and 26/27. I'm going to return... I will give way one more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. Four my point is -- My point is yes 520 estates will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My point is yes 520 estates will be affected but others who may be affected will need to plan their business and their lives accordingly. This will be many many accordingly. This will be many many many more people who are affected by this announcement and simply those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this announcement and simply those who die next year or the year after. Madam Deputy Speaker, I returned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I returned to my point the three quarters of estates cleaning Agricultural estates cleaning Agricultural Property Relief all those who claim Agricultural Property Relief and business property relief will not pay any more inheritance tax and 26/27 as a result of these changes. So in terms of the inheritance tax liability which is what the data about claims points toward, the date was very clear the majority of estates will not be affected. As I mentioned to several of her colleagues on the other side of the House, the data is set out in quite some detail in the -- by the Chancellor and the Treasury Select Committee and perhaps a few looks at that data she will answer some of the question she is posing for to finish my comments in relation to...

Sorry I have moved on. In relation to business rates I will briefly finish my comments in relation to business rates. I must thank my honourable friend his intervention which pointed out what we inherited from the previous government and that was a situation where a really for retail, hospitality and leisure was chopping and changing year to year. And indeed from April this year there is going to be a cliff edge weather will be no relief at all after April at all according to the plans we inherited from the government previously.

We decided to extend that relief at a fiscally responsible level for a further year ahead of our permanent reforms coming in. Whilst we were on the subject of hospitality Madam Deputy Speaker, let me also address the frankly absurd notion in the opposition's motion which I do not believe the shadow Chancellor mentioned in his comments will stop a pint is under threat. --. A pint is under threat. A pint is part of our nation. We do not need a new law to protect the pint that we need a law to say the sunrise in the morning.

I wonder whether the members opposite who drafted that part of the motion may have been number to -- may have been close to a number of points at the point of that insinuation. I'm happy to put on record of it needs to be said pint at the heart of our nation and they will stay that way. Yes. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

four I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I know the government continues to talk about how the Chancellor has shaved 1p off a pint but whenever I shaved 1p off a pint but whenever I shaved 1p off a pint but whenever I talk to public and pub goers in my constituency, many people who quote they are having to find an extra £2000 per month additional cost as a £2000 per month additional cost as a result of the covenant budget. Does he accept 1p off a pint is futile if there are no pubs left drinking?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there are no pubs left drinking? What I have said as I said earlier is our decision, a difficult decision around national insurance conditions will have impacts to different businesses across the country. What I also think he should welcome and I know businesses will welcome across the country is the extra support we have provided new draft relief to support those pubs to relief -- to succeed. That is a large part of not just our economic activity across the country but the social lives we all enjoy we enjoy pints as I know matters very much timbers on the Frontbench opposite.

To try and make some progress because there was quite a lot to cover in the opposition's motion, in terms of employment there motion also sought to undermine the Employment Rights Bill. Let me directly address those points. This bill, the implement rights bill is the first phase of delivering to Make Work Pay. Supporting employers, workers and unions to move work forward and bring greater predictability to the lives of working people. Whilst I recognise the flexibly offered by zero hours contract arrangements and low hours contracts can benefits workers and employers without safeguards the flexibility can be one-sided.

It is far too often the workers who end up bearing all of the financial risk. That is why we have committed to ending this one-sided flexibility to ensure all jobs provide a baseline of security so workers can better plan their lives and their finances will stop --. This means ending exploitative zero hours contracts. We will deliver this commitment through to measures. First of all a right to guaranteed hours by the number of hours offered reflects those worked during a reference period and second, new rights to offer reasonable legislative shifts with proportion of payments with shifts to the council payments or curtailed at short notice.

To try and draw this to a close, they might not want to hear it Madam Deputy Speaker but out of respect to yourself I will bring this to a close. Adam Deputy Speaker, the close. Adam Deputy Speaker, the motion we have been -- Madam Deputy Speaker, the Motion we have been debating today exposes the Conservative party were happy to reject the difficult decisions we are taking the totally unable to offer an alternative plan of their own. Today's debate has also allowed me to set out on behalf of the government how we are moving fast to take the sometimes difficult but necessary decisions to deliver our plan for change.

We are taking the right decisions to fix a -- our public finances, restore fiscal stability and responsibly and make sure businesses and their employees to use -- employees can work sustainably to drive economic growth. Changes we are making are essential to our can and growth. We reject the opposition motion and we are determined to move further and
14:45
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And delighted to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats about the importance of family businesses. Because family businesses are so important to our economy and their local communities. Family businesses are synonymous with quality, trust and reliability. Family businesses have a strong sense of stewardship, of their craft, their capital and their customer base. And by their very nature they have the gall of nurturing their business to pass through to the next generation, and as a result have a vested interest in long-term decisions, stability of the economy and building a resilient community.

Where family businesses are located on high streets, they are often the anchor store, bringing back loyal customers time and time and time again. And family businesses are present in every part of the UK, indeed they are often the largest employer in a region and often the largest philanthropic organisation in those communities too. But in taking their motion today, the official opposition don't seek to acknowledge or accept the damage that they have done to family damage that they have done to family businesses over the years.

If the official opposition our patient, they will realise I will not pull my punches when addressing the government. But it's the opposition day debate, so let me continue to outline the litany of mistakes that have occurred over the years. The Conservatives scrapped the industrial strategy which was the bedrock of long-term planning, they failed to reform the broken business rate system which has hammered family businesses in the High Street, staff family businesses of seasonal workforces many of them need. Their botched Brexit deal has deprived many family businesses have access to European markets, raising trade barriers for imports and racked them up in reams of red tape.

racked them up in reams of red tape. They have reached -- wreaked havoc for businesses and failed to address the soaring energy costs and the energy market which has resulted in many small family businesses suffering from extortion energy contracts and being frozen out of the best deals. And that is why it is disappointing to see that the Labour government is making some of the same mistakes. The National Insurance contributions rise is unnecessary. The government could have raised that £10 billion through other fair means.

Taxes on big corporations that have raised billions and using that money to put public services back on their feet. The business rates proposals will be incredibly damaging for small businesses on our high streets. And I've invited ministers on a number of occasions in this House to look at the House of Commons research we have commissioned that shows that chains will continue to be subsidised by small independents. And of course there are changes to APR and BPR, which raised a relatively small amount of money the Treasury, but can be devastating to many small family businesses across the UK.

Family business UK who I met this morning are urging the government to run their own impact assessment. Family business UK are now conducting their own impact assessment in partnership with the NFU and they intend to speak to more than 3,000 family businesses to ask about the impact these measures may have. So can I invite the Minister either to intervene on me now or to say in his responding comments at the end of the debate whether or not the Minister or the government will meet with family business UK to discuss the findings of their survey once it is complete.

We shouldn't just think of family businesses as units for tax revenue. Family businesses are different. Family farms rightly grab the public's imagination, but there is more than that. If I think about my own constituency in St Albans, I can think of many, hedges farm is much loved, a family run award-winning farm shop in Saint Albans, and their delicious meat is often on the many of our award-winning restaurants. Water tailors two generations of the family, provide bespoke high quality tailoring and especially fancy men's jackets.

The garden centre is a long established family business with a long lovely restaurant and a fantastic place for a day out. We have beauty companies, building merchants and EV charger stalls, all of which are family businesses. And one of my favourite pubs too, the boot, handed down from wheel to his son Sean. But on the subject of pubs, what on earth is this absurd idea in the Opposition Day motion that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will somehow put the pint under threat.

The pint is well and truly safe, and the pint is and truly safe, and the pint is enshrined in law. The pint is well and truly safe, something I'm sure is entire House once to hear. The pint is enshrined in law in the weights and measures act, so the scaremongering is just total nonsense. I would be tempted to call it a load of old codswallop, but I wouldn't want to insult the makers of that very fine pale ale. I could instead accuse them of scraping the barrel, but let us just say that the Conservatives claim that the pint will be abolished is as fanciful as Labour's claim that punters will see a penny taken off the price of their pint.

They won't. Frankly, if the opposition think that they are standing up for pubs, they need to think again. And I say this not only as the MP for St Albans where we have more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in Britain, but also I'm proud to say, I was crowned last year as pub parliamentarian of the year. Now the last Conservative government, proved unfortunately that they didn't know there working from their kin. Couldn't tell kin from a craft cake, and their defective attempt at introducing a draft beer relief ended up excluding the very small craft breweries they were claiming to help.

When the former Prime Minister had the audacity to have a photo op with the casks he left out of the two duty scheme, it was Lib Dems who worked with small breweries to force that correction. So if the official opposition want to pretend to stand up for the great British pub, they will need to do their homework. They should get out and speak to the struggling hospitality businesses they have ignored because if the Conservatives want to continue with their pint -sized politics, it will be the Liberal Democrats who continue to have the official opposition well and truly over a barrel.

Jokes aside, there are changes in the labour budget that are no laughing matter. The National Insurance contribution changes and the reduction in business rates relief will deliver a hammer blow to our pubs. They will have no choice but to put up prices for punters and many more, may be pushed to the brink. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the honourable member. A joint survey by leading hospitality trade associations in Northern Ireland has revealed that 65% of hospitality businesses will reduce hospitality businesses will reduce their employment levels. 55% will cancel planned investment, 20% believe they will have to close their doors. The same can be said of retail because of the extra threat around big business and online sales and the fact they get away with a smoker and taxation. She agreed with me that there will be tumbleweed going down our high streets rather going down our high streets rather than thriving high streets.

As the Minister has indicated today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the honourable member for raising those points. Our high streets are big part of our streets are big part of our communities all over the UK. And communities all over the UK. And there is real concern that when the National Insurance contribution changes and the reduction of the business rates relief kick in, that indeed our high streets will be absolutely hammered. And we may indeed see tumbleweed. And that indeed see tumbleweed. And that matters for two reasons was the one because it means there will be an impact on our local economy, but it could have knock-on impact on could have knock-on impact on people's confidence as well because many people whose lives Turner was good to follow the headlines about growth and inflation and interest rates and the rest, but do let their high streets as the primary signal of whether or not the economy is working for them and whether it's working in the local area.

Of course when it comes to hospitality, it's not just the increase in the national insurance contribution rates that will impact hospitality. It's also the changes that will mean that many part-time workers won't be able to be recruited to work on those businesses as well. That will impact particularly women, often people from ethnic minorities and young people as well who often work in hospitality, often because it's their first job, often because it's hospitality that gives them the chance to work after something adverse has happened in life, but hospitality I think is a sector that all of us in this House can say we support.

And it's absolutely vital

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we continue to support it. I think the honourable member. She talks about businesses run by women. I've got a constituent who runs a nursery in Somerton in my runs a nursery in Somerton in my constituency. She's been struggling constituency. She's been struggling to stay afloat now for some time after the issues from the Conservative government, but also the impact of the increase to the impact of the increase to national insurance contributions. So national insurance contributions. So this announcement in nursery provision could be the last straw for her business, so does the honourable member agree with me that the government must urgently look at the impact that their measures are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

having on the early years sector? Grateful to my honourable friend for that contribution. I absolutely for that contribution. I absolutely agree. In time in this House, it has agree. In time in this House, it has been debated the national insurance rise, and we tabled a number of rise, and we tabled a number of amendments to exclude particular groups. We are opposed to the groups. We are opposed to the national insurance rise., And we said if the government was intent on pursuing this particular measure, pursuing this particular measure, then there should be some organisations that should be exempted, and we would particularly point to healthcare providers, including social care providers but wheels are talked about early years Well universities, charities, hospices, and we've debated those many times and we urge the government once again to look very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

closely at the impact of the National Insurance contribution rise and to do that impact assessment that we also desperately want to see. In my constituency, I have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my constituency, I have a large employer with several sites it was now looking at automation was now looking at automation because the impact will add 1/4 of £1 million to his bottom line. So he is actively looking at how we can make redundancies he can keep his make redundancies he can keep his business afloat. But my honourable friend agreed that this is not the way to improve the local economy and make people feel good about jobs and make people feel good about jobs and investment in the local economy?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. I think there are many sectors and industries were actually automation can have some value automation can have some value alongside employment and training of the next generation, but I think it the next generation, but I think it would be devastating to some other sectors if automation replaces the next generation, and that I think a very important thing particular in farming because if we think of hospitality, the very nature of hospitality is that it is hospitable, and I think the idea hospitable, and I think the idea that we might go to the pub and be served by a vending machine isn't really someone's idea of a good really someone's idea of a good night out.

So I do agree with my honourable friend that automation when put alongside investing in the next generation, investing in staff can be a good thing, but as a replacement could have devastating impacts on the future of sectors and on peoples opportunities as well. So we have talked about the impact of the government's budget on businesses across the land. The Liberal Democrats are incredibly concerned about the impact on family businesses and on the future of our high streets. We will not be supporting the official opposition motion today, which I'm sure they will be astonished to hear.

I'm sure they are astonished to hear as you can hear from the chuntering from the benches, notwithstanding we do urge the government in the strongest possible terms to conduct an impact assessment and to look again at the amendments the Liberal Democrats tabled to exclude key organisations from their hike in National Insurance contributions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the Frontbench contributions were so substantial in length, we have so many colleagues wishing to contribute, there was a time limit of five minutes. And they call the next speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

next speaker. I will start by doing what the opposition failed to do, which is to recognise the particular contribution of family businesses. I contribution of family businesses. I think family businesses will be disappointed that the Shadow Chancellor trotted out a generic business conversation rather than business conversation rather than honing in on what is special about family businesses. And what is special about family businesses can special about family businesses can be counted in May country because of course family businesses make up the majority of businesses.

But their contribution cannot just be counted. It can be felt. I feel it on a weekly basis in the sandwiches of food for thought deli in Barry's High Street. Where I see the incredible effort that Nathan Sarah Leroy and the whole team put in. I started on a visit to Clive Edwards contracts where Josh Edwards is taking on what his father started. I started in the coffee of Welsh coffee company, best consumed on the coastline. And I have felt it very specifically in the joy delivered by the traders of Barry Island.

The primary effort drivers that brings waves of tourists to our shores. I mentioned those contributions being felt because they are the distinct contusions of family businesses. The fact that so many family businesses work way over time, putting a huge amount of personal risk, financial risk and indeed wider collective risk and indeed wider collective There is also wider contribute in family businesses make where the median tenure of a CEO is around 5.5 years for a tenure a family businesses as a multigenerational business.

They are drivers of capital decisions. They are the drivers often of conviction in those decisions. And they are the drivers often as has been mentioned on the other ventures of both philanthropy -- on the other ventures of both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

philanthropy and a number of decisions in those ventures. I think he is of easily

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think he is of easily highlighting the value that family businesses have in the community and businesses have in the community and beyond. I have a constituency who have been investing 80% of all of their profits back into business but their profits back into business but now if they have to do with the changes to BPR, they will be in a changes to BPR, they will be in a position where they will have to diverse equity of the business. Does he agree that is not the way to guarantee growth?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guarantee growth? I thank the honourable member for her question but let me say something is going to come to later which is in all of my experience of business the one thing I have learnt is businesses are nothing but collections of people. They are mums and dads who drive their kids to school, people who drive through potholes created by the Tory government they had. They are people who use our waiting lists in the NHS and want to get a decent health service.

I say to the honourable member, of course it is difficult when we have to bear some of the burden of paying for Public Services but the people who benefit are the people who run our family businesses at the heart of it as well. I will hone and ignore the contribution of the family businesses that they make, something I'm passionate
15:01
Kanishka Narayan Portrait Kanishka Narayan MP (Vale of Glamorgan, Labour)
-
-
about. We know the family businesses are now looking at the fact allowances have been doubled. 96% of allowances have been doubled. 96% of them are micro businesses and the majority of sole proprietorship. majority of sole proprietorship. They are looking at the fact the path corporation tax has been fixed, stability back after a decade and stability back after a decade and 1/2 of total chaos. They are looking at the fact late payments, the absolute fundamental challenge for small businesses and family businesses, late payments have now been cracked down on and Madam Deputy Speaker they are looking at today's motion and feel the comfort of their points being protected too.

-- Their pints being protected also back. When I look at the country should family businesses make that often comes down to insurance. The question of how they can sustain across generations and be productive. In that context the government is doing on late payments is critical. It is family businesses are very limited in the use of external finance. They often rely on cash flow in particular. To be able to deliver cash flow by tackling late payments is a fundamental contribution of this government. They are also drivers of technological innovation.

Most half a family businesses in this country are users of accountancy software moving on to bookkeeping digitally far ahead of many other businesses. I'm passionate about this government is doing, driving the adoption not just of technology but of Artificial Intelligence software in businesses particularly. Let me end where I started in my response to the honourable members question. Which is family businesses are indeed just collections of people. When we are making choices on taxation we are making choices on spending in our public services and those are choices which at the heart of it drive the lot like the long-term health, the long stemmed ability and the long-term effort of our family businesses.

businesses.
15:03
Joy Morrissey Portrait Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. It is a privilege to stand here today on behalf of the businesses in my constituency. These small family businesses provide the backbone of our economy. They are the job creators, they play a vital role in helping other communities. They deserve our support in this House. It is now clear to businesses in my constituency they find themselves with a Labour government which simply does not understand business. This is a government which seems to think just by saying the word growth over and over again it will magically happen.

The truth is businesses create growth, not hot air from the Chancellor. The government is seriously damaging businesses with a national insurance tax rate that will destroy jobs and put at risk thousands of businesses. Time and time again business owners have warned of the consequences that they have been met with a wall of silence. Why? Because this Labour government simply do not understand this nurse or the consequences of their actions. At the end of last year I hosted a roundtable of local businesses, family run, multigenerational.

They have been at the heart of our local economy for decades. And now they are struggling. Not just with the concerns of the national insurance threshold increase, all of the differences in the Employment Rights Bill that is coming in but they are concerned with the skill shortages and the economic uncertainty this is going to cause. And now thanks to this government tax rate they are being forced to make impossible choices. To cut back on hiring, reduce investment or close their doors altogether.

Let me give you just one example. I met the owner of a proud family business serving Marlow for over 88 years. He to -- he told me plainly these government policies will make it harder for businesses like his to even survive. His story is one I have heard time and time again. This government does not seem to get in lowering the employment national insurance threshold so dramatically it is making it almost impossible for businesses that employ lots of people to operate in the low margin sectors.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Isn't the truth, would she agree with me that what the government policies have done is to create a policies have done is to create a hostile environment for family businesses to continue to invest in people, hiring people and equipment. people, hiring people and equipment. people, hiring people and equipment. And the damages that produces --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that reduces growth of our economy. It is damaging, it is a hostile environment for businesses, for environment for businesses, for entrepreneurs that make a difference who grow our economy, grow our tax base. That is who this government is hurting. The people who will make this country great will grow us out of any economic issues we are having now. I hurting entrepreneurs and small businesses, we are cutting ourselves off. We are cutting ourselves off from growth. Again it is not some mythical word the Chancellor says it is.

It is something that is delivered by hard-working small family businesses in this country. This is not just affecting small businesses but it is affecting all service level jobs in our economy. Care services, retail, hospitality, events, they are just a few of the sectors where businesses increasingly face impossible choices. Of cutting jobs or shutting their businesses. It is of course not just national insurance the government is raiding businesses or burdening them with overregulation, businesses are already reeling from the national insurance rate facing higher business rates and Employment Rights Bill that is destined to actually lower employment.

And the destruction of family farms. Just yesterday British chamber of Commerce described in stark reality the powderkeg of cost. Facing British businesses. In the avalanche of inconvenient facts for the government that the chamber of Commerce unleashed, one stood out to me. 58% of businesses told the chamber of Commerce it will impact recruitment. Fewer jobs at a time when we need the economy to be growing. It is economic illiteracy on steroids. I will always stand up for our local family businesses and those in my constituency.

Their message to me has been crystal clear. This government's... Is damaging to them, to jobs and growth for the future. I urge the government to wake up to the disaster they are unleashing on businesses in my constituency and across this House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I refer the House to my Register of Interests. I was very my Register of Interests. I was very taken by the points made by the shadow Chancellor when he talked about the excellent inheritance left by the previous government. I by the previous government. I daresay we had to listen to the shadow Chancellor's views on what this government has done and the this government has done and the benefit of his knowledge and experience and his time in
15:09
Mark Ferguson Portrait Mark Ferguson MP (Gateshead Central and Whickham, Labour)
-
-
experience and his time in government. I regret to say I spent most of my adult life in the Labour Party in opposition. But as a result I have gained huge amounts of experience about opposition which I am more than happy to pass on to the benches opposite. Let me say this very clearly, if you continue to say throughout the next few years, if the party opposite continue to say in the years ahead up until the next election they left an excellent inheritance for this country, you will be sent to an even further electoral oblivion than which you were sent last July.

But I urge you to put it on your leaflets, I urge those opposite put it on their leaflets. Because I will certainly be putting it on mine. I will also be putting on leaflets proudly the measures in the Employment Rights Bill. Let me talk about some of them. Getting rid of zero-hour contracts. Introducing Daiwa rights. And -- day one rights and introducing like getting rid of fire and rehire. When this bill passes and when it is a success, the party opposite will not be quite so keen to trumpet what terrible things they are but if they wish to they were more than welcome on those leaflets at the next election to talk about how they want to bring back zero- hour contracts, bring back the ability to introduce fire and rehire and abolished day one rightss does he recall the party opposite back in the 1990s under the previous Labour government opposed the introduction of a national minimum wage? Disinterested.

-- Proliferative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Meitei reflect on that. I do not remember because I am

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not remember because I am far more useful than I look. But like the laws I have read about it in the history books. I have no doubt my honourable friend is doubt my honourable friend is doubt my honourable friend is correct. I am also aware from the correct. I am also aware from the history books the party opposite have been very humble about the have been very humble about the pint, what might happen to the point, as a proud pint drinker, sometimes to my own health and cost, the proud British pint going absolutely nowhere.

Not from the small businesses in Gateshead Central and Whickham and not from anywhere else. I am grateful to him. He is making a characteristic powerful case. The history books nature -- do the history books not show that Labour have a ways been the party of the pint and Harold Wilson expressed enthusiastic support for preserving the pint

**** Possible New Speaker ****

measure. After the Conservatives prefer the small bitter? I defer to him, to my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I defer to him, to my honourable friend is a learned historian and I daresay knows far more about the daresay knows far more about the history of the pint then I will ever muster. I have probably drank more muster. I have probably drank more than him but he has probably read about more of them than I have. The title of this motion is family title of this motion is family businesses. My honourable friend has already assiduously made the point already assiduously made the point to the saddle Chancellor 96% of family businesses will not be affected by some of the measures contained within this measure.

I wish to some of the family businesses in my constituency of Gateshead in central -- Gateshead Central and Whickham. Some who I have spoken to recently. The successful construction business who recently conducted a transfer into employee ownership. A show of confidence in our economy. A bakery set from scratch during this government. It was a shell during the General Election when I went to visit it. But it shows how a family in Gateshead, generations of the same Gateshead family have invested hundreds of thousands of pounds of their own money into setting up what some of you might find slightly unlikely and I will admit when I first heard it I was not sure it would be a success myself at but it is a kosher Parisian participate in the heart of pension in Gateshead.

It has been a huge success, there are queues around the block those like most days and if you make the mistake of going in at 2 o'clock like I did last week he will be met with an empty patisserie counter. The fact you cannot set up a small business under this government is absolutely for the birds. I have seen it in my own constituency, people doing something challenging in a community that is not often supported more widely within Gateshead.

I am incredibly proud of them and incredibly proud of other small businesses. I am not astonished at the way we are discussing this interesting motion, it might as well be called things the Conservative party does not like that the Labour Party has done. That is the nature of opposition debates of course. I am enjoying this opportunity to talk about the family businesses in Gateshead nonetheless, to talk about my passion and our passion on these benches for the humble British pint. I am having so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much fun I will happily give way. The honourable gentleman is giving a very entertaining speech. I look forward to visiting the look forward to visiting the business I hope in the future full he has outlined businesses being set up in his constituency. That is perfectly clear and he is entitled to do so. Did he speak to the new to do so. Did he speak to the new business about the £800 per employee extra this covenant has put on them through the budget he has brought in? And what they have to say about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it? I thank the honourable member for his point. I have spoken to Joshua his point. I have spoken to Joshua runs the business about everything an aspect of that business will stop he is delighted I assure you with how his business is going. I am delighted and members opposite are chuntering from a sedentary position. As of course is their right. But my High Street in Gateshead which I'm pleased to say the Minister will be responding later has been to visit, was wrecked under the last government.

Decisions made had a profound impact on my High Street and those across the country. The idea attribute of small businesses offer the birds, this covenant is going to rebuild the great British High Street and rebuild it by supporting small businesses. I will be voting against this motion today quite rightly because I am afraid to quote former leader of the party opposite it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a pleasure for me to stand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a pleasure for me to stand here on behalf of dozens, probably
15:16
Bradley Thomas Portrait Bradley Thomas MP (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
-
-
here on behalf of dozens, probably hundreds of businesses across my constituency, many of which are run by families. It's really quite discomforting to also stand here and hear from Labour a sort of sense of sheer denial and arrogance as to what actually drives growth in our economy. I think what I find most despondent of all is that the government's default ideological position is one where their mentality is what taxes can we raise? Rather than how can we as government cut our cloth accordingly? And pass on the benefits of that to the economy in the form of reduced taxes.

The default position is what taxes can be increase in the businesses that provide the very backbone of our prosperity? In that vein, family businesses provide employment for almost 14 many people across the country, and they contribute £575 billion to the national economy. And these businesses are founded on principles of entrepreneurialism, which I am proud that my party has championed for decades. They are showing once again that they do not understand the value of business. They only know how to tax and regulate enterprise that ultimately makes our economy weaker.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful. They may speak of their support for small business and may speak of their passion for it, may speak of their passion for it, but they will never speak of their experience of setting up and running one. Very limited experience on those benches, and is not actually a part of the problem, having never part of the problem, having never set up and run one, they have no idea of the impact of their policies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on one. I agree wholeheartedly. I think that strikes at the heart of the governments lack of appreciation for what fundamentally drives the economy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economy. To be that the opposition, we may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be that the opposition, we may not know what their CV shows, so it could be small businesses it's just not on their CV.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend probably raises a very valid point. But let's just look at the facts. The just look at the facts. The government will attempt to tarnish government will attempt to tarnish Conservatives record, but in July, Labour inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7 with employment economy in the G7 with employment near... Unemployment near record lows and inflation at the Bank of lows and inflation at the Bank of England's target. We see a complete reversal of this. That's in part due to the choices the government have made in their budget that has made in their budget that has destroyed that progress.

The budget from the government and their fundamental approach overall threatens the future of family businesses through new redtape, the family business tax, the family farm tax, national insurance job 's tax. Businesses know they are paying more. The government know the businesses are paying more, on how some of them have the gall to frankly sit there and accept that their position is one of honesty and credibility when it comes to growing the economy. I'd like to cite an example of ICANN. A business in my patch got in touch with me, and this comes from Jack whose family run an apprenticeship training provider.

Jack said my parents left school with no qualifications over the last 50 years. They've worked hard paying their way, getting on, building a good life and business for us as a family. Since 2007 they've been a majority shareholder and owners of a business called Birmingham electrical training, which Jack is also a director of. They are currently the second biggest provider of electrical apprenticeships in the UK and train 700+ apprenticeships... Apprentices in partnership with Jones only five local and national contractors, many of which reside and work within the West Midlands region.

They held the Department of education contract, recognised by the electric industry, providing a crucial role in training the next generation of electricians. Pertinent point, when the government is pursuing policies such as ludicrous cleaning market mechanism which will require a step change in electrical contractors in order to deliver on some of the governments net zero folly, but the point that Jack makes, and he quotes this, " There is no way that I will be able to afford the £800,000 worth of tax to access the is this which I have had to build and grow over the past 10 years as a result of the changes announced by the Chancellor to inheritance tax." He will personally be liable for £800,000 that he will not be in a position to pay.

This jeopardises a family business that is at the forefront and backbone of the country's economy. He asks why the government want to destroy family business, which is crucial? To helping growth in years to come. This is not an isolated case. The Confederation of British industry and family business UK have once that changes to Business Property Relief could lead to up to 125,000 job losses and reduce economic output by £9.4 billion as their analysis found average family businesses would cut investment by staggering 16.5%, reduce headcount by 10.2%, and loose turnover of 74%.

This recognises that government does not appreciate the fundamental benefits, the positive benefits to wider society of promoting small businesses and their long-term financial viability. The government is making the UK a hostile destination for investment, both large and small. Government must work to ensure that our country is the most attractive possible destination for businesses to invest and grow and to make us wealthier.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For some family businesses like those in my constituency, their main competitors are actually competitors are actually international companies. Does my honourable friend agree with me that this government is not actually this government is not actually considered how increasing costs for UK businesses is actually making some of our family businesses less

**** Possible New Speaker ****

competitive. Man Noble Friend hits the nail on the head. And what particularly the head. And what particularly rings in my ears are words from the rings in my ears are words from the Chancellor just a few months ago which said the businesses need to cut their cloth accordingly. I go back to my initial point. Government last also cut its cloth accordingly. The default position of government in order to support business should be how can government spend taxpayers money that those are the funds generated by the very businesses we are talking about in the most efficient way possible so that we can have as lower tax basis in our economy as possible to make the UK the great destination for inward investment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is talking about cutting cloth. Perhaps you could tell the 40 many people employed by family businesses how he would cut the public services how he would cut the public services they rely on to be able to fund the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unfunded tax claims is making. The intervention the honourable gentleman has made is a good one in gentleman has made is a good one in that you demonstrate the point, the honourable member demonstrates the point that his party philosophically believes that you either have to tax or cut. They don't have any appreciation... The government have no appreciation of the fact that money can be spent more effectively in the first instance. It's a fundamental ideological weakness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the government. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way first does he think... You have 10 seconds left. You

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to finish? I will finish by saying that I will always be proud to stand up for small businesses in villages and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

across the country. I draw attention to my declarations in the register of declarations in the register of interest. It's a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, and I will just say that the clean heat will just say that the clean heat market mechanism that he spoke about and which is causing concern to business in his constituency was of course brought forward by the last Conservative government. But I would start by talking about the employment rights, just 20 months in committee giving line by line through that bill, and I thought the House want to hear about some of the opinions and positions put forward by the opposition through that process.

Because we heard that the opposition tried to exempt millions of workers in some of the lowest paying sectors from protection
15:24
Laurence Turner Portrait Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)
-
-
against harassment at work. We heard from the shadow Minister that he does not believe that public sector does not believe that public sector employers should offer facility time at all. They attempted to block at all. They attempted to block better contracts for teaching assistants and other low paid assistants and other low paid members of school support staff. And a witness was presented as representative of business opinion representative of business opinion who had previously said that lockdowns would kill far more people lockdowns would kill far more people than COVID.

So I do not think that the motion of the party putting it forward is a credible voice of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economic growth or business. The independent regulatory policy committee back in November looked at committee back in November looked at this very bill and said that eight out of the 23 categories were, " Not out of the 23 categories were, " Not fit for purpose." Was that discussed? And given its independent, does it give credit when it comes to discussing that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill? I thank him for his intervention, and one of the pleasures of that committee is that we have 970 pages of transcripts where this was of transcripts where this was discussed at length. And the government is indeed bringing forward further impact assessments on those points. But looking at my constituents, indeed the constituencies of all members of this House, the economic record we have inherited as one of pallid economic growth and wage growth. In the last 15 years, average real wages in Birmingham not worth £300 lower each month than they were in 2010.

The cost of delayed and cancelled NHS appointments, of crime that goes without investigation, shortages in key teaching posts is borne by constituents. It is borne by businesses as well. So we should say this clearly, public services create value. Businesses and the people who work for them need strong public services to sustain themselves and to grow. And in fact when I met small businesses on Northfield High Street recently, we had as you would expect a serious and robust discussion about a whole range of government policies and policies enacted by the previous government, but the first issue that they raised was crime and antisocial behaviour.

And anyone who has been a victim of crime will be able to attest to the devastating impact it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can have on a business. He makes a really eloquent point about the issues of antisocial about the issues of antisocial behaviour. And crime on the economy, in particular small businesses. We recognise small businesses like mine recognise small businesses like mine in Harlow have a massive effect from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

antisocial behaviour? I think it makes a very sensible point and the issues he raises are exactly reflected in my constituency. It's one of the major constituency. It's one of the major barriers to getting jobs and to getting spending into our high streets. And if the budget last year had failed to raise money for investment in public services, it would have been a bit like changing the colour on a shovel before continuing to dig a hole in the same date.

We could not prolong the failed approach of the last 14 years. Add to that the disgraceful situation that awaited the incoming Labour government, and for all the sound and fury we've heard from the party opposite, there is little mystery now about this. Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR told the Treasury Committee that and I'm quoting, " When we had a high trust relationship with the Treasury, those things were being well managed and managed within the total." The system regularly broke down.

There was about 950... Sorry, 9.5 billion of net pressure on departments budgets which they did not disclose to us, which under the law and under the act, they should have done so. And decisions that awaited the incoming government on public sector pay, which is the other element of the 20 billion had been docked and delayed until after the election. We need to be clear on this, the right honourable member is indicating from a secondary position that he will know of course the situation with the school teachers pay review body because conservative ministers already knew the recommendations of the SDLP, and they knew too that recommendations of the other review bodies tend to be similar.

So why were those recommendations delayed? Remembering that the pay year starts not in July, or even at the beginning of the Pre-election period. It starts in April. It's because conservative ministers and the departments were late to submit the rumoured evidence and letters and evidence, and the office for macroeconomics has been very clear on this point, and said, " The work of the PLB is to man lead and essential nonnegotiable remotes and timetables." So that's the truth of the matter.

Those additional costs were always coming, and the only reason why they came seven months into an election year was because conservative ministers were content for it to be so delayed. Now the party opposite claim that they would not have accepted those recommendations. But they have not said at any single point what their position, what their offer to public sector workers would have been. So I wonder are there any honourable members from the party opposite that can tell us today, had they won the election, if it was not 5.5%, what It should not be a hard question to answer.

What was the difference being the pay packets of nurses and teachers and members of the Armed Forces? I would be happy to take an intervention on that point. They cannot answer that question. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I put on the record, this has been a hugely important week for this house with increase in defence spending. And how important it was spending. And how important it was that on these benches we gave it 6% pay rise to member's of the Armed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forces, the biggest in 20 years. He makes the point as well as it can be made and I think it is intervention. In the remaining seconds, let us not forget the cost to businesses inflicted by the last to businesses inflicted by the last government from the botched EU withdrawal policies, up to 7.5 withdrawal policies, up to 7.5 billion each year according to HMRC from customs checks alone. £1 billion in costs to businesses due to higher energy costs, and a further £1 billion due to chemical regulations in that sector alone.

As one of their former Prime Minister said, something like, screw business, at least we can say on that he lived up to his word. The motion before us is not a serious proposition. It has not been put forward by serious opposition and it should be rejected tonight.
15:31
Esther McVey Portrait Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. I have to say I am disappointed, as small business owners up and down the country, that the Chancellor could not find her way into the chamber today. Because if she had done, she might have learnt a thing or two. There are family businesses that go back four and five generations, and some were planning before this budget to be getting ready for the next generation. Not now. Some, founded in the 1800s, have told me that the businesses survived two world wars, have survived the Spanish flu, the high tax and economic lunacy of the 1970s, even the recent COVID lockdowns, but this Chancellor's budget will be the death of them.

They have said to me that on their family business gravestone will be written " RIP, 1830-2026, Reeves Budget, the fatal blow. " She wanted her legacy to be that she was the first female Chancellor but her legacy will be the grim Reeves Reaper. This Labour government shows no signs of understanding business let alone family businesses that employ 14 million people and add £175 billion to the economy. A family business is a living entity. It needs to be nurtured, and if it is it will grow.

And last hundreds of years. It will pass on to the next generation. And it has a unique place in the business ecosystem. It serves a special purpose even previous Labour governments have known that which is why they did that Business Property Relief because they knew it was required. But not this Labour government. Oh no, because now, the death of a family member could spell the death of the family business too. The CBI and the family business UK have warned that these changes could lead to 125,000 job losses and reduce economic output by significant amount.

These tax changes, businesses have to look at this. And as they think how much money they will put aside these tax changes, every pound they put into tax means it is 1 pound less that will go into investment. Which will definitely stifle growth of the company. This from a Labour government that has talked about growth will only kill off growth. If it is not just for the impact of the Inheritance Tax, we have the family farm tax. The increased employers National Insurance Contribution.

We have the minimum wage changes. Every single one of these will add to the final nail in many of our businesses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way. She agreed that the myriad of labour agreed that the myriad of labour attacks on family businesses will have a huge impact on businesses have a huge impact on businesses find him my constituency, one of find him my constituency, one of them employs many people, and it an industry that has seen a reduction

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in tech sales in January alone following the government's so-called growth budget? My honourable friend speaks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend speaks knowledgeably and passionately about the business in her constituency and she's right. A family business I spoke to, they will say, we are already working on small profits. We don't know how we will cope with the enormity of these changes, they will change the way we look at our business. What are we going to do? We might have to carve them up, might have to cut them down. We might sell them. It might come through foreign investment about whether we are seeking them out or they seek us out.

But what they are saying is that the business will not survive and thrive, it will no doubt shrink or it will end. I will touch on another point because I think this is essential and others have talked about it. Family businesses are the breeding ground of entrepreneurs. It is where family members who work at the weekend, where they will be trained up and I will go into that business. We talked about love and passion and all those things. But it is that entrepreneurial spirit that this government is going to kill.

And it will kill jobs in local communities which is why I talk about the special place of family businesses because they are right in the heart of this community. This Chancellor said that these changes will only impact the wealthiest businesses. Haven't we heard that before? The farm tax would only impact the wealthiest of farms. Supposedly the removal of the Winter Fuel Payment would only impact the wealthiest of pensioners. And the VAT on schools would only impact the wealthiest of people.

This is utter nonsense. What we are seeing is the Labour Party removed from reality and ideologically driven, and blinded by jealousy. The rave that they have done on family businesses worth about £500 million by 2030, it is actually going to lose billions of pounds more. These tax changes are ideologically driven and the Chancellor is killing the geese that laid the golden egg. They have, on the opposite benches, a complete vacuum of business know-how and business knowledge.

It is an utter disgrace what they are doing to our country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw the attention of the house to my register interest. Unusually, I welcome today's motion from the Conservative party because it sets down on the record loud and clear down on the record loud and clear that they are no friend of working
15:38
Deirdre Costigan Portrait Deirdre Costigan MP (Ealing Southall, Labour)
-
-
people. They are no friend of working women in particular. There motion course for an end to Labour's groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill and would allow bad employers to continue to exploit workers, to sack anyone who objects, and to continue paying them in less than men. This is not a surprise of course. With the Leader of the Opposition having already made clear she thinks maternity pay has gone too far. And that it is excessive. Statutory Maternity Pay is based on your earnings, and for most of the leave period it is that the maximum of £184 per week or 90% of your normal pay, whichever is lower.

That translates to about £9500 each year. I don't think many women or their partners would think this is excessive. I am at least grateful the Conservatives are being honest today that they could not care less about working people. The shadow Chancellor earlier was unable to tell us which bits of the Employment Rights Bill they wanted to get rid of. He should read his own motion. It is written down in black-and- white. There motion explicitly objects to Labour's new law to finally make employers a stop to sexual harassment in the workplace.

And to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment of staff by customers, contractors, service users too. This is something the Conservatives seem especially against their motion, which is peculiar because Justin Isco, they said they were going to bring in exactly the same law. What happened? Oh yes, I know, they abandoned working women, broke their promises and left shop workers and women managers to the mercy of sexual harassment. And they want to do the same today. The other new law in labours Employment Rights Bill that they seem especially against, and it is in their motion that the Shadow Chancellor has not read, is the ending of the exploitative zero hours contracts.

There motion instead supports the continued mistreatment of often low-paid workers who don't know from one week to the next much work they will get if they will be able to pay their bills. Let's be clear, sexual harassment can often go hand-in-hand with exploitative zero hours contracts. Imagine how difficult it is for a low-paid woman to complain about managers inappropriate sexual behaviour if she is relying on him to give her enough hours to feed a family next week. Zero hours contracts put way too much power in the hands of managers and with proper business planning, there is simply no need for them to be forced on workers.

In their motion, the Conservatives seem to have confused knowing what your hours are in advance with the new right to flexible working which Labour is also introducing. They claim these two things are in conflict. Of course they are not. You can still have a zero hours contract if you want to. But if you are guaranteed hours to have a secure income for your family, then you will be entitled to that. And if you want to work part-time because you have kids or elderly parents, then you will have a new rights to flexible working that will allow that.

The Conservative motion is not clear whether they support flexible working or not. But surely the Leader of the Opposition should understand and embrace Labour's new rights to flexible working, given the reported invention of Kenny Mean Time, to explain being half an hour late for everything. Maybe it is one law for heard another of the workers? In this motion, the Conservatives have squarely and unashamedly set themselves against working people and working women especially. But the British people made a choice on 4 July.

They voted for a party that would stand up for working people, that will keep its promises to outlaw sexual harassment at work and end exploitative zero hours contract. And that is why Labour will vigorously and vociferously votes down the Conservatives attempt to stop these changes today. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. It will be hard to follow that, I will be doing that the lower level
15:42
Mike Martin Portrait Mike Martin MP (Tunbridge Wells, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
will be doing that the lower level of energy. I recently met with a number of people who run a cafe in Tunbridge Wells and they are a family who have run four cafe's across Kent. The family business is the subject of today's motion. The honourable Member needs to pipe down after the damage they did to the economy. I met them recently and they told me that the combination of minimum wage, National Insurance rises and business rates, and it is the combination of all three, that has them on their knees.

And the only thing that they can do, bearing only thing that they can do, bearing The only option they have is to lay off staff or not grow their employment in the way they had planned. If you Zoom out a little bit, about one month ago, I met Tunbridge Wells hospitality representative they are the owners of pubs and restaurants and hotels and bars in Tunbridge Wells. Most of those are small businesses. Most of them are family businesses.

As we went around the table, it is the same story from them as well. It is the combination of all three coming at the same time which means they are either looking at laying off staff now or delaying plans for staff now or delaying plans for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way and for the excellent way he is serving many families in he is serving many families in Tunbridge Wells. In mid Sussex, I Tunbridge Wells. In mid Sussex, I recently spoke to their counterparts and they said exactly what my and they said exactly what my honourable friend said ducts they honourable friend said ducts they are finding it hard they are brave they will have to close your business if the government does not think again.

Does my honourable think again. Does my honourable friend the grey the government needs to think harder about the impact their decisions are having on family

**** Possible New Speaker ****

businesses? I thank my honourable friend for her under the chin. This is not a to her under the chin. This is not a to -- issue. They are staring up at me trying to juggle a P&L or how they trying to juggle a P&L or how they will their national insurance business rates at the end of the business rates at the end of the month. These are real stories. We don't have much time but I want to zoom out a little bit and make a couple of points and ask the Minister something.

The first thing about hospitality is that many of us had our first job working in hospitality. My first job when I was 16 was as a dishwasher in a hotel. Of course, the question is, whether you would employ me now with these laws are invest in equipment to ultimately dishwashing to the point where you do not need to employ so many 60 needles. I came from a relatively privileged background. -- So many 16-year-olds.

It was an incredibly important experience to form me into the pattern that I am now. I want these businesses to be able to employ people in their first jobs because we only ever have one first boss. The second societal point I would like to make is that hospitality particularly since in this ecosystem in town centres. It is hospitality, retail, leisure. Of course, one of those things will bring people into the town centre and then they will often visit another business from one of the other corners of triangle.

The hospitality in particular, as has been mentioned from both sides of the House, acts as a glue in our society. One thing I have noticed since being elected last July is actually how atomised our society is. Particularly after the pandemic, many people struggle with that sense of belonging. We are looking for communities to belong to. Hospitality, whether it is having a pint, some chips, it provides some of the glue that holds us together and if society is glued together better, other things like antisocial behaviour, crime, health - social connection improves health.

All those things get easier and it costs the government less money on other budgetary lands. I would like to ask the Minister one thing. I know we have did increase in rates and I know that the Chancellor will not go back on rises in National Insurance and will not go back on the minimum wage but one business rates, they have indicated it is currently in consultation and they are asking people to contribute to that. I would ask that you don't just look at it from, in the manner of a spreadsheet, I the Treasury often does.

It is important that we support those businesses financially and you must understand that retail, hospitality, leisure in town centres contribute to the glue that holds society together and when we reform the business rates, we must consider that as well. that as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow some measured and passionate speeches from across the House on this subject. I am very proud to represent the largest constituency by geographic area in England and an
15:49
Joe Morris Portrait Joe Morris MP (Hexham, Labour)
-
-
by geographic area in England and an area phone to be one of the happiest in the country with the best sense of community and belonging. With the recess I coasted a roundtable with members of local businesses and community organisations and, as has been said, family businesses are the glue that does together, many glue that does together, many strands of the Tyne Valley. In the aftermath of the pandemic we have seen many family-run businesses coming out, helping the community, finding places to stay and helping communities that have taken a battering.

It is becoming all too common. To return to the emotion, I was disappointed when I read that once again we are discussing a kind of hodgepodge of various critics and drawings in -- gripes and groans into government policy. That is fine. The members opposite should be better than that. Some of them can of if they want. Some of them have got experience writing manifestoes that perhaps don't play out so well. Ultimately, what we need to achieve is an environment in which family businesses and small businesses across the country are generally supported by government.

One thing that has come to my attention since being elected as the first nonconservative MP4 Hexham -- MP for Hexham in a century and people have told me it is nice to have an MP that is not complacent. Compared to the treatment they have received from the Conservative Party in past years, MPs to went to school and those to benefit, got their first jobs in local businesses, can speak with this is in their constituencies to actually deliver messages here.

I've had conversations with businesses like the farm shop which did involve some patient disagreement over the budget and also involved mainly real concerns over local infrastructure such as a lack of bus stops on the a 69, the difficulties young people have getting to work. They do a fantastic getting to work. They do a fantastic job. My fiance and I went there after the election and it was a wonderful event but I think she enjoyed it more than I did.

Having those positive conversations and talking about what business needs in terms of infrastructure and investment, this is a government, not one that impacts on Natalie Bire, ideological crusade -- on haywire ideological crusade...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(LAUGHTER) I am grateful to the honourable member for giving way. Another challenge small businesses face is importing and exporting ingredients

**** Possible New Speaker ****

importing and exporting ingredients and I hope that comes into the trade agreement next year. The honourable member is far more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member is far more well dread and research that I could hope to be back those barriers to import and export come up with a bright speak to farmers and local bright speak to farmers and local businesses. Getting the -- whenever I speak. Getting the products out is not as easy as it used to be. The main concern I get in my constituency is infrastructure, bus routes, a lack of roads that are navigable. I visited the village of Newton and it is not a pothole but more like a small gorge and they have continued missives to the county council and that is holding back small businesses because they do not know if the delivery driver can get to their premises or if they can get to work.

That is causing real uncertainty to businesses. I would urge members opposite to get a grip on the party and object to some of the more charmingly online things like conspiracy theory over the paint, which is beneath them. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pint. Britain has got talent. We have
15:54
John Cooper Portrait John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Britain has got talent. We have many clever people innovating and working hard across the land. I've been in places as far apart as Exeter and Glasgow, talking to people who bid everything from satellites to sausage rolls but the mood is not good with people still striving and struggling to deliver success. Confidence is not on the floor but deep in the sellers below. At my constituency of Gallowgate I spoke with family bakers who had modest expansion plans and concerned many youngsters will not be able to find those important job.

Those youngsters are on the dole. Similarly, there are usually wonderful opportunities in catering but there are @six people will lose their jobs as a result of the antibusiness agenda designed 11 Downing Street. One labour Downing Street. One labour backbencher announced our tax rise as the worst possible. The same politician is now Chancellor. And they have changed their tune. And spare us the fact the Labour manifesto pledge or National Insurance only cover that paid by employees.

So frustrating. We are not lacking start-ups but scale-ups. The multigenerational nature and investment, literal and metaphorical, of senior figures is being abused. The Prime Minister talks a good game but talk is cheap and his actions have spent the consequences. He said that he and the Chancellor made clear to Cabinet colleagues that in each of their briefs, growth is the number one mission. The Deputy Prime Minister did not hear. Perhaps a rave music was too late.

The government's analysis says the National Insurance rise will cost businesses five times a year for grandparents in the US and £5 million for families that have been in business for decades look at the bottom line. They will despair. The worst aspect is the premise that all trade union organisers and saints and business owners are barons, intent on exploiting workers. The Secretary of State for Scotland would not attend a reception in his own magnificent Dover House and it was ironically with the Scottish CBI.

Those same strikers have forced the cancellation of the Scotland Office event with National Air Traffic Services. The unions party like it is 1979. The party opposite seems this as a dripping roast to be devoured and the perceived ability in the public sector which... They see this only in private. They are as wrong at that as they are about 'comfort' begin a dirty word. The drivers of growth are in the private sector and deserve admiration growth. What can we do for them? Get out of the way, less regulation, not more, and I can-do attitude, lightning tax, not adding to it.

Labour needs to allow forums in every part of the country to step up with the private sector leading the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

charge. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The economy the government inherited was a total mess. We had a was a total mess. We had a Conservative government that for so long ignored the problems that building up. Instead of looking for building up. Instead of looking for solutions, the kicks them into the long grass. They make decisions like long grass. They make decisions like the mini budget of Liz Truss which were catastrophic for the economy. Many of our constituents are still paying the cost of today and will do so for some time to come.

Further it
15:58
Becky Gittins Portrait Becky Gittins MP (Clwyd East, Labour)
-
-
was money for a failed skid more dodgy contracts, they wasted money by making bad decisions of the public aid the price, inheriting an public aid the price, inheriting an economy in a perilous state which led to a inevitably difficult led to a inevitably difficult decisions that could not have been anticipated until the true extent of the previous government's economic the previous government's economic incompetence was exposed. This has clearly set out our path to economy. clearly set out our path to economy.

It is fixing patient and focusing on growth and ensuring we give the economy stability, investment, reform required to get us away from the doom loop of the Tories and back to growth. Yes, the back have been tough choices. On this site, we don't shy away from it. These choices mean big investing public services, including the NHS, driving down waiting lists. The UK government... I want. The UK government has privatised investment in Wales and the result of the Budget last is the largest funding boost for Wales since devolution - £21 million of new money and people in Wales will see the benefits of this through direct spending.

The Budget provides a record £1.7 billion spending boost for the to support public services like the NHS. Investment in public services means more neighbourhood policing, again something constituents and local business communities desperately want to see with more funding available to support the delivery of 13,000 more police officers, PCSOs, special constables and communities, keeping streets safe and protecting retail businesses from shoplifting which was allowed to run right under the government previously. This is what my constituents want to see.

They want government on their side. The Opposition are more than happy to take the benefits additional investment will provide but I politely suggest that by not outliving how to pay for it, the position lacked credibility. The Shadow Cabinet has wrapped up £7 million in unfunded spending commitments. Not serious enough. I'm heartened the government has taken concrete steps to protect small businesses and charities and the employment allowance 22 £10,500 million 230,000 employees will getting and an additional 830,000 will see no change.

Organisations like the Federation of Small Businesses have welcomed the, as have many who have gained further place. In north Wales, will be the benefits of two governments working together at Wales and Westminster, focused investment and growth with investment in Kellogg's, Shot Nil and more in Wales already and the same confidence example by the £63 The green jobs will be critical, last week in my constituency the way was paved for some 300 new jobs helping to support the wind industry.

When I go out and speak to businesses in my constituency, family businesses, they don't simply represent what we have heard from the opposition benches. They share the government's passion on the skills agenda and apprenticeships, on reforming our restrictive planning regime and the need for investment in our NHS which this government is already prioritising. This government is continuing to promote entrepreneurship, attracting millions of pounds of investment in providing the uncertainty a business need. Businesses include East deserve better than faux outrage from the Conservative party and this government will not allow the party opposite to pretend to be the champions of British business.

Not the Conservative government to sold our farmers down the river through detrimental trade deals, the Conservative government to run down our economy and the Liz Truss mini- Budget with short-term thinking and decimated business confidence. It is Labour government committed to giving our economy the stability investment it needs to grow. Laying the foundations for thriving businesses at the heart of prosperous communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased that the opposition is
16:03
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
using our time today to debate the importance of businesses large and small. It is the private sector that creates the wealth on which our society depends. It is the taxes they pay that funds our NHS and other important public services. The policies of this Labour government, on raising taxes to impose additional regulations are putting those businesses at risk. Having promised not to increase National Insurance Contributions in the general election, the Chancellor immediately broke that promise in the budget.

This National Insurance hike will cost employers £900 every employee earning the average salary. The tax rise disproportionately affects employees on low wages. Someone earning £9000 a year will cost their employer an extra £600 a year in tax. This is not just a tax on businesses, it is a tax on jobs. Labour has introduced a £25 million jobs tax that will increase the cost of hiring workers. Labour has also increased business rates by £2.7 billion. Under the Conservatives, the retail hospitality and leisure sectors received 75% relief on business rates.

Our labour has reduced this relief to just 40%.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank you for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank you for giving way. Does he agree with me that both the reduction in hospitality rates the reduction in hospitality rates relief under threshold he has just acknowledged with regard to lower earnings creates a perfect storm for hospitality businesses not just hospitality businesses not just because the additional rate pressure but in fact they are less incentivised to recruit part-time workers which have been acknowledged by others, and often young people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by others, and often young people with their first deployment opportunity. I thank him for the opportunity. All Labour's measures will increase unemployment. And although Labour will say they have reduced the multiplier of business rates, this does not fully compensate. It leaves an average pub paying an additional £5500 each year. This is not a sustainable burden for many businesses. They are already struggling with inflation and rising costs. These taxes add up and they will lead to closures, job losses, and harm our communities.

Another troubling decision from the Labour Party is the reduction of the cap on Business Property Relief. BPR was designed to protect family-owned businesses from being broken up. It was introduced in 1976 by Denis Healey, to ensure that businesses could continue to provide jobs and contribute to the economy across generations. It is extraordinary that Labour has found a Chancellor less sympathetic to businesses than Denis Healey. This decision is a blow to those who have worked tirelessly to build and sustain their businesses.

It will force families to sell their businesses or take on crippling debts just to pay tax. For many, this will be the end of their family businesses. The Employment Rights Bill requires employers to spend 150 £150 per employee on additional administrative costs to comply with new rules including a ban on zero hours contracts and potential liabilities for third party harassment. At the time and businesses are already under strain, this is further unnecessary cost, especially for small businesses that don't have the resources to navigate this redtape.

Having spent 11 weeks going through the Employment Rights Bill line by line, I note just how damaging it will be to SMEs in Bridgwater and elsewhere. Let us take just one example, the so-called day one right. This will mean, as became apparent that after less than a week, a new employee was the wrong fit for a company, a complicated process must be followed to dismiss them. Speaking as a former, though fully qualified, solicitor, I know that this will have a disproportionate effect on those small businesses without an HR Department.

If they don't. All the -- dot all the I's and cross all the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

T's, they risk being taken to court. In that specific circumstance, they will be covered by the new they will be covered by the new probationary period provision which is writing the probationary period into the law for the first time?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into the law for the first time? My honourable friend would be correct if in fact there was a written contract which included a probation period. What he forgets is probation period. What he forgets is that many small businesses will conclude that contract on a handshake and a verbal agreement. There won't be a formal probationary There won't be a formal probationary period. It is exactly those small businesses that have not got a written contract that will be liable to legal action. Another example is that, should a business failed to notify a new employee of their right to join a trade union in writing, they may be liable to pay an additional four weeks pay as a compensatory award.

In what world is this system really going to work? Do we believe that those who run a corner shop or a pub, or a fishmonger, are going to give their employees written notice that they have the right to join a trade union? No they won't. And legal consequences will follow. On these benches we believe that businesses, are at the heart of the economy and they should not be punished by government policies that stifle growth and investment. It is important to note that this government's track record when it comes to business is deeply comes to business is deeply troubling.

Just one of them has ever started a business. When decisions are made by those who don't understand the pressures faced by small business owners, it is no surprise that the policies are so harmful. The Labour government we face is not a new Labour government in that Tony Blair model. It is very much a 1970s old Labour government addicted to taxing, spending, borrowing, and regulating. And I regret to say we will see unemployment rise. We will support family businesses, and ensure that the British economy prospers.

Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I refer members to my Register of
16:10
Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)
-
-
I refer members to my Register of Interests. I spent the best part of a decade in my family business. As a qualified chartered accountant. Fully horrified with a certificate to match. My family business was a firm accountant, my family set it up. And I reflect some of the remarks from the opposite benches. I meet them the degree of sadness and anger. That will be reflected on businesses in my constituency as well as many family businesses across the country.

We should be under no doubts that this budget put forward by the Chancellor has been deeply damaging. And my honourable friend said it correctly when he intervened on the Shadow Chancellor about how it is a toxic concoction of measures which means that now, for the first time, many businesses will be wondering whether it is even worth setting up in business. The decisions that we take in this house to matter. Because they result in costs. Family businesses are not just some opaque term, they are individuals with hopes and dreams and aspirations.

The cost of the decisions that the Chancellor has taken, the political choices that she has made, and that members opposite our defending, means that those decisions will put a cost on those businesses that will be passed on to consumers and clients. And ultimately they will feed into cost of services and therefore cost of living. When we see the inflation rate increased from the 2% that we left it to 3%, of course there is a consequence from the decisions the Chancellor is making.

Members opposite, they may not want to accept that today, but they may well want to reflect on that. The honourable Member from Hexham, I note he did not name the Tory members that he respects, and hope it doesn't some point. The member it doesn't some point. The member talked about this motion, these are not things that we are brought up, this is what businesses are telling us. This is what they are talking about every day.

I am more than happy to give examples. I spoke to a business the other day which has got a subsidiary in my constituency, £400 million turnover. A family business of over 160 years old. It was looking to be a brilliant turnover company by 2030 which meant more employment and more jobs and more products for life change. They have had to put a hold on that because if the father of that business passes away, the inheritance tax bill will come to £2 million because it is a family business, dividends will have to be found they have to find the right £18 million to fund it.

He said they will prop you have to sell some of the business to be able to finance an inheritance tax bill which is incredibly difficult for them to incredibly difficult for them to prepare for. I have Eric Lyons in my constituency, a butcher of over 100 years old. And Nick who I will be meeting in the coming weeks, says it is a great family business that serves Constituents like mine. He was vocal on LinkedIn, what he said was not all repeatable results about the National Insurance rise and the impact it will have any impact on the cost of the product is selling.

I have another business that has great hospitality business. Hospitality does not reflect the comments made by opposite benches, UK hospitality businesses across the board are up in arms because of the reduction in rates relief, the reduction in the threshold of national insurance, not just the increase, the reduction in the threshold is having a huge impact. Fundamentally means people will not get jobs, their first jobs in hospitality, they are the ones that suffer because they are not being the most costly.

Not just in terms of salary, but it will be that training costs and the time taken. These are consequences of the decision the Chancellor is taking. I have a great amount of sadness when I listen to members opposite who say they listen but they don't agree they talk about how great the businesses. I just don't believe they are talking to those businesses. At least 99% of businesses will be affected by this, will not be happy about that. And the consequence of, when the government came in, they have decisions to make.

They could have patched the roof if this fictitious blackhole is to be believed, they could have fixed the roof of the sun is shining because now we are faced with a changing global scene with Ukraine where it is and Donald Trump and Putin, the Chancellor cannot commit to not coming back for more taxation to stop it is inevitable taxation to stop it is inevitable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since coming into government last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since coming into government last July, there have launched an attack July, there have launched an attack on small businesses and the 500 SMEs are over 99% of the British population and in my constituency population and in my constituency they have been front and centre of the assault. 88% of my constituency the assault. 88% of my constituency is agricultural land and so not only are farmers being by the hits to
16:16
Sarah Bool Portrait Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
-
-
are farmers being by the hits to agricultural and business property relief but small businesses that sell their produce which will also be hit by these taxes. My farmers do not deserve this. They have only ever worked hard, day and night, generation after generation. Small businesses on the high street have told me they might have to cut the highly effective apprenticeship programs because of the increase. It is destroying is not focuses on the high street.

There are over 90 small pubs in my constituency which will also be heard in reduction in business rate relief and other punitive tax rises at a time when many locals are really struggling. The Conservatives left office was one of the lowest unemployment figures in recent history but after the Halloween Party at the number of vacancies is following Andronov is for them down as a result of the choices this government has made. I tried to give above-inflation pay rises to union paymasters and the choice to target farmers, destroying their life off work for 22.5 hours of NHS spending.

This is driven by a socialist ideology and is a choice to destroy business relief and local pubs. They are taking taxis and pubs. They are taking taxis and working people across the country -- increasing taxes and working people across the country are being the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

price. Labour is not working. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate on the disastrous impact of Labour policies disastrous impact of Labour policies on my constituency of foreign --
16:18
Gregory Stafford Portrait Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
-
on my constituency of foreign -- Farnham is painless. My constituency are concerned about the impact on small and family businesses, the backbone of the economy and lifeblood of communities. Across the UK, they provide almost 40 million jobs and continually contribute an amazing £575 billion to the economy but these businesses are under siege under Labour. Labour does not understand business and sees them as a cash cow to fund endless state expansion. My grandparents and great grandparents dedicated their life to a local shop and would be horrified to see this full-scale assault on family businesses.

It will decimate family-run enterprises, breaking them apart when they should be passed down to the next generation. In the Surrey site of the visitors, we have two cops for independent enterprise including the tearoom, the farm shop, and one of the last remaining British-owned family department stores which have been the cornerstones of high since generation. Haslemere is home to a number of businesses including David Barnes Menswear. They have a total lifespan of 430 ranges. These policies will cost 425,000 jobs.

Will be government reconsider stance before it is too late for these cities. In East Hampton, a family- run travel agency since 1971 and the distillery, although newer, is an outstanding Artisan liquor company based in the former military tone. These businesses like across the country are already being squeezed by misguided economic policies, with increased rates and tax burdens making it harder to survive. Mac Labour misunderstands business, it actively despises the countryside. The government is illiterate to rural jobs, businesses, communities and does not care about them.

The Family Farm Tax is a direct attack on farming families who have worked the land for generations. The farmers of Kilsyth Pharma now face closure due to rising costs. The nursery had hoped to pack the business to the next generation but now believe this will be impossible. Likewise, my campaign for local pubs and heritage cops has seen me do a pub crawl across the constituency. I have visited 17 of 56 pop. Everything must be done in moderation.

I've had invaluable conversations with landlords and one pointed out the importance of zeros contracts for his employees including one who works as a paramedic. -- Zero-hours contract. Labour will impose a cost of £150 on his business.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will he acknowledge that what the bill actually says is now should be forced onto zero-hours contract, not forced onto zero-hours contract, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the fact someone will be denied the chance to get off. I understand he has got through this line by line but these this line by line but these businesses are reporting to be and apparently to him and are concerned apparently to him and are concerned about this. In our villages, the village pub in the heart of the committee as Labour is making it harder for them to survive. I asked the government why the government that the supposedly focused on growth cutting businesses in my constituency to downsize, sell up, move out.

These policies are not just misguided but ideological. The hatred of business and contempt for the countryside of Labour are now trained in policy. Since election, the government has accepted £5.6 million in donations from trade unions and no wonder policies prioritise union interests over business. The Business Secretary met the trade unions every three days in the first months in charge. Where is the access forest businesses? To the access forest businesses? To grow the economy we must create jobs, foster prosperity, and that is why we're calling for the reversal of the Family Farm Tax and the reduction in business rates relief.

The government acknowledged its policies are driving up the cost of living, not reducing it? The government is continuing its war on businesses and the countryside but I will finish by extending my deepest thanks to our local farms which are truly at the heart of the social and economic fabric of our community. We will always stand up for family businesses, farmers, local communities to ensure they can thrive, create jobs, and passed on their legacies to future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

generations. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
16:24
Robbie Moore Portrait Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Family businesses are the very back Family businesses are the very back of our local economy. Are the job creators, innovators, entrepreneurs, those that drive the local economy in the heart of all of our communities. They employ 40 -- 14 million people and contribute builders to the economy and there has rightly been much concern made about the Budget that was announced in October last year. And rightly, as the Shadow Farming Minister, there has been much noise made about the Family Farm Tax but I want to focus on the implications of specifically Business Property Relief.

I carried from the Minister -- I carried from the Minister talking about mechanisms they have deleted the impact the business relief will have and I want to know how the Treasury arrived at those decisions and the Minister is not your to listen to my points like dispersible specifically address these. The Treasury have calculated APR and BPR changes will bring in £500 million to the Treasury but it seems despite the challenges I and others have raised to the Minister and Treasury, there has been no economic impact assessment provided as as result of the changes.

I see a pin any specific detail that has been looked at around business property relief and wider implications for too many family implications for too many family businesses? Only last week, I met with the man who runs Fibre Line who employs 250 people in Keighley and has commented that the negative impact on his business, completely owned by him and his family will be catastrophic. If something happened to him, the dire consequences of tax that will be implemented to his wider family will be catastrophic, quitting a is potentially 250 people.

-- Putting at risk.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the honourable member for giving me. Would he agree member for giving me. Would he agree with me it would be helpful if the Minister in closing remarks to give assurance to meet with Family Business UK who are conducting their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

own survey into the impact of changes to APR and BPR. I wish the government would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish the government would listen to the concerns raised by not only Family Business UK are doing a only Family Business UK are doing a good job with data provided to the Treasury and no one is listening. The Chancellor did not have the courtesy to turn up to listen to many farming organisations and is not given wider family business tickled with the courtesy of listening to them. The implications will have dire consequences on those businesses that want to invest and employ local people and to make the same challenges that the wider former businesses are making about potential IHT liability down the lane because they could only look at disposing shareholding within their business and many don't want to do that.

Why would they want to sell out to a larger corporation? They want to keep their family business in the wider family organisation. They sell machinery that impacts the productivity of their business. I believe the Treasury are not looking at this. Businesses are asking me - what is the point? Why would I invest time and energy growing the business of it will have wider implications of the people we are implying within the business? This Budget is hostile to family businesses and have hugely detrimental impact on family businesses and Family Business UK have said in the data be presented to the government that these changes are likely to result in a loss of £9.4 billion and the potential loss of 135,000 full-time employment jobs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from April 2026 up until April 2030 April 2031. Does my honourable friend agreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does my honourable friend agreed with me that what we are discussing demonstrates a progress demonstrates a progress contradiction in that the sums we talk about are huge and catastrophic for businesses involved but the for businesses involved but the overall net receipt to the Exchequer is so small it is further testament to the lack of economic and to the lack of economic and political nous of the. Speak about my honourable friend makes the my honourable friend makes the excellent point that the revenue is only £500 million but the catastrophic impact this will have on many family businesses issues, including those in hospitality, including those in hospitality, manufacturing, engineering, tax- -- technology-based businesses in my constituency.

They must look at these changes because they undermine stability and growth of family businesses owned by many in our constituency. The government needs to rethink the policy and accent, as we are calling for. -- axe it. The Conservative Party would put 100% relief back into this property relief, providing certainty for many family businesses. There are many other challenges brought forward by the Budget. Employers National Insurance increase, impacting many family businesses, not least High Energy, one of the gyms in my constituency who are saying to me they have calculated the National Insurance bill coupled with the challenges of the business rates bill down the line will have catastrophic consequences on their business and their overheads will increase by will not be able to increase the membership to keep their business competitive amongst the many other gym organisations in the constituency.

This same that is reiterated by all of our family reiterated by all of our family For our family businesses the budget was another example of Labour doing that same thing, saying one thing and doing another. They claim to be progrowth, but yet they directly tax employment. They claim to be pro- business but yet they tax wealth creators and family firms. Growth cannot be magic up out of that thin air, as the government stipulates. This government, this party, is on the side of family businesses and I'm pleased to support the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. The director of Family Business UK says the single biggest issue for
16:31
Graham Leadbitter Portrait Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
-
says the single biggest issue for family businesses they represent has been the retention of Business Property Relief. It is something that has come through loud and clear to me when I have spoken to to me when I have spoken to businesses, and with organisations, with local chambers of commerce, and other businesses that have come together. Family businesses that do not normally lobby their MPs, that normally just get on with doing a hard-working and productive family business.

They have come together to lobby because they are so concerned about the of BPR. To give a flavour of the family businesses in my constituency, we have some of the most iconic family businesses in the UK. From Baxters who many will know from food works, Walkers, food products. We have another business which is a family business. And Johnson is which produces some of the finest works in the world. In Scotland as a whole they employ 1000 people. These businesses are not small fry.

They put huge amounts of money and investment every single year. Collectively I met a group of business owners last week who collectively represented 2 1/2 thousand years of business ownership. That is a phenomenal story that they have to tell. But what is incredible about them is the investment of their time and energy. They work in all aspects of the business, family get trained in the business, and ready to take on the mantle of the business later in life.

If that business was an LLP, and you got rid of the business management, they would not have any kind of inheritance tax to pay. In a family business, businesses operating on that scale, and the likely tax they will be hit with, your choice they will have is to either having to spend millions of pounds on a tax bill which means they are not investing. Or they will end up having to sell off large parts of the business. For manufacturing businesses, there is a very big chance that will end up not in the UK but abroad.

It will be bought by a multinational or a company conglomerate and the jobs will be shipped abroad. That is not the way to grow the economy. The official motion today, I have to say that first couple of bits of it I was OK, I think as the Official Opposition they would have been better to have had a laserlike focus on Inheritance Tax and National Insurance Contributions. But the inclusion of trying to stop the workers rights Bill is frankly ridiculous.

As for adding in the measures, it seems someone has been on a heady brew before coming up with it. It makes it unsupportable. I hope the Minister is listening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about close aspects of the motion that I do support. I thank the honourable lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable lady forgiving way. In Scotland businesses are also battling with businesses are also battling with that business rates relief not being passed on in full by the SNP Scottish government. Will the member be putting pressure on his party in be putting pressure on his party in Scotland to pass on these really sinful to help businesses in Scotland?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scotland? I hear what Goldman is saying. There are a number of reliefs in There are a number of reliefs in Scotland, and Scotland went further and quicker when it came to small- business bonus scheme. So I'm not going to take any lessons about what we do with business rates. It is a different system. There are a lot of things going on that make them different. And it is not the issue. The first and foremost issue, as has been indicated by family businesses, is inheritance tax.

This is causing the most consternation. The businesses I spoke to they said they were finding financial advisers and they are already being advised to set aside substantial amounts of money to cover off risk. These are businesses that have never had to value themselves in their life. They are family businesses that work on a model of working with what you have model of working with what you have any get on with it. They have never placed the value of inheritance on the business was not that is another headache for them, another bureaucratic maze for them to work through.

It does not apply to LPs. It is a very unfair situation. And I don't understand why a Labour government in particular is tackling family owned businesses in that way and allowing shareholder owned businesses, LPs, allowing them to run off the hook. It does not make sense to me. The honourable member sense to me. The honourable member for support and, and I'm sorry that I can't...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an honour to rise today to speak on behalf of the very many family businesses in my
16:38
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
constituency. Because family businesses are at the heart of our local communities as well as at the heart of our local economies. They provide employment for nearly 14 million people, contravening £575 billion to the economy. They are founded on solid principles of entrepreneurialism and self responsibility. I'm proud to represent so many fantastic family businesses ranging from heavy engineering firms in the Black Country vineyards. They worked tirelessly to build and sustain their businesses. Creating jobs and prosperity for the they offer excellent products and services to customers near and far.

They look forward to the children one day continuing in their footsteps. But the job is being made much harder by Labour's family business tax, a barrage of burdensome redtape trade union charter, a family business surcharge and a national insurance jobs tax which means together that businesses will pay more in tax and compliance rather than in growth and jobs. And, as has been said before, it is the accumulative impact of all of these measures that is so damaging. I'm not going to pretend that most family businesses I speak to are delighted by increasing the national minimum wage any more than they were delighted the previous year when the previous government increased it by a higher amount.

But they recognised wage increases for their staff was the right thing to do. But where they do have a problem is when those additional wage costs are compounded by payroll taxes in the form of the National Insurance Contributions which hit particularly hard those sectors that rely particularly on part-time workers which are suddenly facing enormous increases. And it is compounded further by business rate rises for those in retail and hospitality who are suddenly finding their business rates bills nearly doubling in April compared to what they are paid for the last few years.

And also coming in in April that flurry of additional regulations, and somehow, you face survive and thrive and develop their businesses, they find they can no longer expect to be able to leave the business intact for the future generations of their family. The Confederation of British Industry, have warned that Labour's changes to BPR could lead to 125,000 job losses and reduce economic output by £9.4 billion. Businesses that have survived economic downturns, global recessions, and the worldwide pandemic.

They now face the prospect of being put to the knees by a tax policy that were fulsome to break up the businesses with the current owners when they pass away. This is not just a policy change it is existential threat. The Black Country is a region with a proud history of manufacturing and enterprise. We have always been a place of hard work and innovation in community. And my constituents are proud of a thriving rural economy built on countless family businesses.

Businesses have helped to build the United Kingdom, and the idea that a tax change could strip away the future of our local businesses is nothing short of a tragedy. Fairness would be recognising that family businesses are not just economic units. They are part of the family fabric of our communities will stop supporting local charities, providing apprenticeships, creating jobs for those who need them. If these proposals continue to go forward, they risk losing these businesses, and with them, the local jobs they provide.

I have spoken with many family businesses in my constituency. Businesses have been operating the community for generations. They are fearful, they are uncertain, and they are already having to make decisions about the businesses and about their employees because of the Chancellor's damaging because of the Chancellor's damaging budget. Sadly, some are being forced out of business because of these measures. The government's blinkered view that sees business as little more than a source of revenue to offset their spending plans is wrong.

I urge the government to listen to the concerns of these family firms, and across the country, who have been directly impacted by the changes. These proposals must be scrapped.
16:43
Lewis Cocking Portrait Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. I'm proud to represent a constituency with so many fantastic small businesses, and those in Broxbourne are likely to be small business employers more than the national average. Entrepreneurs in the towns and villages I represent are working hard, taking risks, day in day out, growing our local economy and creating jobs. Last month I was told by a government minister who stood at the Dispatch Box that I was sort of right that Private business creates growth. But it is not the government that creates economic growth in this country it is the thousands of business owners across the country outside of this place that work hard, day in day out, creating jobs right across the country, investing in their companies and investing in their supply chains.

We have listened to the debate from across the house and we have had some good speeches from this side of the chamber about how it is business that creates economic growth and not government. It was sort of alluded to by Labour MP whose constituency escapes me, that the National Insurance increase of £25 billion, the employment regulation of £5 million does not matter to family businesses because they are quite small and don't deploy many people. That is no way to treat family businesses in this country.

We should be saying to family businesses in this country, the sky's the limit. We should be saying, invest in your business, grow that business, we will help you and support you, we will create the right environment for you to take those risks because it is a massive risk when you put your life savings, put blood sweat and tears into a business that you want to grow particularly from your home when you are starting a new business. And it is an incredible risk to say, I will take that jump and make an offer to someone and employ my first employee.

We should be creating the environment to be able to do that. Because the more of them we have, the more family businesses that upscale, that creates local jobs, that invest in their business, the more money the Treasury gets. So the more money we can spend on public services. We should not be hampering businesses. I think that was a businesses. I think that was a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is making a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is making a powerful point. Whilst the Labour members opposite give justification members opposite give justification as to why they had to raise the as to why they had to raise the taxes, we have not had a single word about the impact they will have on about the impact they will have on family farms, businesses, employers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend makes an important point and when I speak to farmers and business owners, as he got, I have not met one who things got, I have not met one who things Labour are on the right path. I have heard it is trade unions and that is probably correct. People in my constituency think the government has sold them the river, let them down the garden path, and doing things they did not expect when they got into power.

We have not heard what they are doing to support family businesses. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is thinking with -- speaking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is thinking with -- speaking with great passion about some of her constituents and apart from the constituents and apart from the money going into the NHS and education at the work we are doing, he gave the example of a business he gave the example of a business about to employ their first person. Is it not the case for some small Is it not the case for some small businesses that they will pay less national insurance after this Budget?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for his intervention. In my constituency, businesses are putting constituency, businesses are putting off investing and employing local people because of the new regulation people because of the new regulation his government is introducing. We have not heard from the government and I hope when the matter winds up they will outline what we will do to create the next generation of create the next generation of entrepreneurs. We could turbocharge education. We have fantastic education.

We have fantastic teachers in my constituency and across the country doing a sterling job for young people. We could say job for young people. We could say to people who have created businesses to go back to secondary school and teach, not from the textbook but from real life experience about how to create jobs in the business and teach those students how to create their own business. You could have someone come in who has run a business and get them to look at accounts, how much they will pay people, how much tax they will pay.

They had to look at designing logos, designing TV advertising for the product of what they will sell, what they will do. We could be doing that and thinking outside the box and that not what support the government will give to create the next generation of entrepreneurs because if we do not unlock their aspiration and allow people to take risks and investment ideas, there will be no taxes coming in, no money for public services. We must do this and do it more regularly.

I open the Minister gets to the dispatch box has somebody he tells the House how you will unlock the next generation of entrepreneurs and support people to take these risks. It is a massive risk and this is why the government rhetoric... I will give way. Does he agree with me that if young people cannot get to work due to public transport, potholes, illness, that will hold them back and does he agree we are taking steps to source problems?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You supporting a party cutting the capital budget for transport. the capital budget for transport. I've made this point time and time again. It could take on the utility again. It could take on the utility again. It could take on the utility companies could take -- dig the. And because the economy and taxpayer billions of pounds. If we get people billions of pounds. If we get people to the shops and to work quicker and I get my builders and electricians I get my builders and electricians to the site to do jobs quicker, they will have more money in their pocket to spend on the local high street that we have to protect and they can take risks and employ people but I have not had that from the company.

I have not heard that we will take on utility companies and unlock the aspiration of the next generation through education. I would say to the members opposite, you have said in your manifesto campaign you are the government of economic growth but the reason why that is not working is due fundamentally did not understand it is private business in the country and family businesses that create economic growth, not this disaster is Labour government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Small and medium businesses account for 99.3% of all business in
16:51
Llinos Medi Portrait Llinos Medi MP (Ynys Môn, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
account for 99.3% of all business in Wales. Not simply economic value but social and cultural in communities as well. These businesses employ local people, keeping rough in their area and are part of a thriving community. -- Keeping well. Small businesses have been under pressure for years. There is huge strain on local businesses decision will cost jobs. The cuts to property relief will damage local businesses. A family run business for over 40 years have said that this change will have huge implications for their business.

As at the employ of the Bobby restricted in job creation and -- as a key employer they will be restricted in job creation and growth with less infrastructure at their sites. Brexit has been damaging for Welsh businesses because we are more reliant on Europe with a higher percentage of goods going to grip compared to the UK on the whole. Must start removing damaging trade barriers because this is a simple step to help struggling businesses. As if that was not enough pressure, the Welsh Liberal Government continues to charge higher business rates to Welsh businesses than anywhere else in Great Britain.

The recent closure of the Port had an impact and football was -- football was down 40%, having a direct impact on the economy and has caused issues recovering from the recent storm. The government must realise the impact of the closure of the port for the business and the economy and I call on them it again to establish a hardship fund to support business is directly affected by the closure of the board. We have wonderful business on the island.

I visited the chocolate factory last week - a magical and delicious Welsh chocolate factory with colourful packaging, giving a boost to the local economy and rich culture. And today we have the local fish and chips shop competing in the national final. There are many fine family businesses but after yours of neglect, many are questioning their future. I am afraid the government is privatising large corporations over small family businesses, the backbone of the economy. The government wants growth, they must change track and prioritise hard- working small and family businesses.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Peter Fortune.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Peter Fortune. Like many on this side of the
16:54
Peter Fortune Portrait Peter Fortune MP (Bromley and Biggin Hill, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like many on this side of the House, I refer to the register of interests. It's been fascinating listening to stories of businesses across the country and I was particularly moved by my honourable friend to talk about the pressure facing a local gym. It made me feel better because I'm contributing to mine by contributing membership fees without using facilities. Lead came to power at the new government proclaimed economic growth as the proclaimed economic growth as the first mission.

For all of the doom mongering, they said it would go on, energy bills were falling, inflation was on target at employment was high. In seven short months, economic growth had stalled. The Bank of England reduced growth forecasts by 30% at the cost of living is rising with high inflation, energy bills, unemployment increasing as businesses brace for tax rises and the economy is struggling because of the Labour policies with the jobs tax to make it more expensive for businesses to employ people and a rate hike to squeeze the struggling high street and more employment red tape to type businesses' hands.

Labour is not content with cutting jobs and businesses but are giving ministers the power to shrink the great British paint. They ceded to who could trust -- they have said they will not do it you cannot trust them - not pensioners nor farmers, certainly. On such a vitally important national issue, can we take that risk? Every employer I speak in my constituency tells me they have no choice but to cut jobs, wages, investment. That is true whether it is a luxury, a large franchisee on the high street in Bromley or a charity.

This is what an antibusiness government looks like, not one that is progrowth. These policies are bizarre. The Prime Minister once said creation was his party. The reality is he does not know how to create wealth, does not know how to create wealth, only tax it. Taxing family farmers, family businesses, high street businesses that will be forced to close. Taking jobs so working people face redundancy. It is not too late for a Labour to spare family businesses which employ 14 million people and contribute £575 billion to the economy.

The decision to cap and cut Business Deal If risks breaking up the family businesses and the next generation will be forced to sell. The government losses will not draw the economy but hold it. -- Government policies. Britain cannot afford the Labour assault on the economic future of the nation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate has been held against This debate has been held against the absurd backdrop of the counsellor rating to government counsellor rating to government colleagues and desperately seeking advice on finding economic growth.
16:58
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
advice on finding economic growth. In the Energy Department, they are de-emphasising the economy and the Home Office welcoming Immigration Act in the business department they are adding more than £5 billion a year in new costs to business in a single act of Parliament. They are also increasing taxes, like the change to business property relief because they broke election policies as soon as he got into office. In the manifest, the promise that by 2028-20, they would only increase spending by £9.5 billion deal.

They knew the facts as the Chancellor told the financial Times but a few months later the increased spending by £76 billion per year, eight times more than they promised in the manifesto. This is the reason for broken tax promises, the higher taxes, extra borrowing,, not the perks you see is offered by -- the bad excuses offered by the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving me. The next point public spending is next point public spending is increasing faster than expected. Perhaps you could outline there it Perhaps you could outline there it should be cut in his own

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be cut in his own Public spending is not increasing faster than I expected it is increasing faster than his party to the country. The Treasury might not be what it once was and even if we be what it once was and even if we believed what the Minister said about the fictional blackhole and the Office for Budget Responsibility has assuaged that, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion does not reach half of the £76 billion in extra labour spending. I'm not sure the Minister was listening but he can intervene if you want to to explain.

He clearly isn't. What do we get for these extra taxes? The Home Office budget has been cut by 2.7% in real terms compared with last year. The Department of Transport budget has been cut by 2.5% and its capital budget by 3.1%. That is economic budget by 3.1%. That is economic illiteracy. This amounts to tax rises and spending cuts to go with stagflation, stagnation, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inflation. Labour economics. To be fair to the Labour government they have seen a surplus government they have seen a surplus in terms of self-assessment receipts but the problem is the OBR was but the problem is the OBR was expecting it to be £21 billion. Therefore we have the prospect of having to try and find get that having to try and find get that extra money from. The other side need to set up, will they break need to set up, will they break their fiscal rules? Will they cut public spending again? Will increase taxes? Does my friend have any inclination from the other side of what they might choose because I have not heard anything?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would say based on the record of the party opposite that we know of the party opposite that we know what is best. The bond markets have taken a single look at the Chancellor's fiscal plans and increased Britain's borrowing costs increased Britain's borrowing costs which is another Labour tax rise for all of us. Not one word in the speeches that we have heard from the party opposite today recognises the party opposite today recognises the cumulative damage caused by their government's policies.

National government's policies. National Insurance jobs tax, a hike in the cost of hiring staff by £900 for an employee or an average salary. It is costing businesses £25 billion in total. The business rates relief cut from 75% down to 40%. Many businesses will spend £2.7 billion extra each year by 2026/27. The Employment Rights Bill which will cost businesses £5 billion in sheer and probably more once the government finally gets its impact assessments rights. Normally you get the impact assessments done for a bill is published not after it has passed its stages.

Then the energy secretary wants to increase the carbon price, higher than Europe and he constantly endorses a report to as much as £147 per tonne of carbon dioxide by 2030. As industries are lining up to tell them, this is yet another job killer. And of course there are the changes to Business Property Relief which we have discussed today which will cost £1.25 billion and cost 125,000 jobs by 2030.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would my honourable friend agree that the impact of the changes to Agricultural Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief and business property are already being felt by businesses across the country because farmers are simply having to shelve investment for fear having to shelve investment for fear of huge inheritance tax bill and this is affecting the wider rural economy because there is no new economy because there is no new machinery coming, there's no new buildings being built. It means less tax receipts for the Treasury, fewer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tax receipts for the Treasury, fewer jobs and a poorer United Kingdom. I agree with what my honourable friend is saying. I was baffled by friend is saying. I was baffled by the speeches from the benches opposite where MPs are lining up to say they had a meeting with businesses who are desperate to congratulate them for the tax rises that the government is imposing on them. It is clearly ridiculous. In my own constituency of West Suffolk, I'm proud to represent so many family businesses that contribute to the economy.

One business is one of the last few remaining family run shipping companies in Britain. Another family has manufactured and exported agricultural machinery since the 1980s. The wedge galvanising company is a leading business in Europe and beyond. We need these vibrant and successful family businesses to help us build. And as my honourable friend just said, telling us the same thing. The choice they are confronted by because of the policies of this government, is to consider selling the business altogether, selling parts of their business, or cutting much-needed investment.

I conclude by saying that repeating the word growth in press releases and ministerial speeches and tweets does not make growth magically appear. Public business this government has is the fastest route to killing growth and our prosperity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Shadow Minister. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. When he was seeking votes last When he was seeking votes last summer, the prime ministers said, small businesses are the lifeblood
17:05
Andrew Griffith Portrait Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
-
-
small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. Business is the beating heart of our economy. He told small business owners in Southampton that Labour will deliver the stability business needs to thrive. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the Business Secretary have all looked businesses in the eye and said they had their back. But at the very first opportunity, Labour has unleashed the biggest attack on business for a generation. They gave the union paymasters a blank cheque to craft an Employment Bill that will make it impossible for business to grow.

They gave us the jobs tax, the family business death tax and business rates high up and down the high street. Business owners across this country are injuring a horror show reminiscent of the darkest days of the 1970s. It is no wonder how we got here. Not one single person sat around the Cabinet table has serious experience of business. They don't understand what it means to take the risks that create growth. They don't understand the responsibility business owners take on when they decide to employ people.

What it is like to worry day and night if you can make payroll at the end of next month. They just don't get it. Today on our side of the house, we have seen some excellent contributions of my colleagues who do get it. Do understand what it takes. The honourable member for Beaconsfield reminded us that it is businesses that create jobs, not one word from the government. Your word before Graham's -- the honourable member for Bromsgrove told us how the government is in denial and we saw that the choices they have made the tax increases.

The honourable member for Tatton reminded us that family businesses are the breeding grounds of entrepreneurs. My friend put Dumfries and Galloway reminded us that when it comes to business, yes, Britain has got talent. Businesses provide so many people including myself with their all-important first job. And businesses are being crushed by what my right honourable friend rightly called today's toxic concoction of changes. The honourable member for Bridgwater, reminded us he is a former and fully qualified solicitor.

Of the devastating impacts of the Employment Bill which he studied. My friend talked to us about how family businesses are people's hopes and dreams and ambitions. You'll remember for South Northamptonshire reminded us that right now businesses are cutting apprenticeships. Pubs are closing, high streets are damaging. Reminding us that once again Labour is not working. My friend and neighbour from Farnham and Bordon reminded us how Labour sees business as nothing more than a cash cow to fund their spending sprees.

And the honourable member for Keighley and Oakley talked about how growth cannot be magic out of thin air however much this government tries. Family businesses founded on solid principles and self-reliance. The honourable member for Kingswood and south of brought his experience of business to bear this debate. It is not businesses! It is not government that creates the businesses. The honourable Member reminded us how just seven short months in, the Bank of England is halving growth forecasts, the cost-of-living is rising, and unemployment is going up, all on this one.

And finally the member for West Suffolk reminded us why we are really had today. We are here today because Labour broke their election promises. They have increased spending to £76 billion a year, eight times what was in their manifesto and it is this that is paying the price. Business is not an abstraction, these are our pubs, our cafe's, restaurants and bars, are clothes shops and newsagents. Our very real and they are in very real danger. For many of them, the choices the government has made will be terminal.

The British Retail Consortium, the British Chamber of Commerce, UK hospitality, the Federation of Small Businesses and family businesses UK are all ringing the alarm bells. But this government is not listening. We have heard that across the south including from the other parties it today. Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that Labour's jobs tax will hit the lowest paid the hardest. As firms are forced to make the very toughest of decisions to survive. And for what end? To fund pay rises for train drivers, to give away the Chagos Islands, to finance the mad windmill obsessions.

Yesterday the Conservatives successfully mended in the other place National Insurance bill, to mitigate the worst of Labour's jobs tax. Will the Minister in winding up confirm that they will respect that amendment to exempt hospices, care providers, GPs, pharmacies, small charities, and SEND providers from the worst ravages of Labour's jobs tax. Let me be entirely clear for the benefit of everyone of our constituents in this house, these are choices Labour have made, and they are not choices that will lead to growth.

One archetypal small business are our family owned pubs. We can all think of a family owned pub we have come to love. Thousands of them will fall victim to this government antibusiness agenda. Not to mention the government's tax on the staff behind the bar, a bill to ban banter, as threats to end even the cheeky cigarettes outside and even a power for the Business Secretary to shrink the size of the British points. The government are giving themselves unchecked powers which could see the great British pint vanquished as part of their chosen horse EU surrender product regulation bill.

The member for Ealing North who has returned to his place, say that they have no plans to ban the point. But if that is the case, will they support our amendment, 38, that will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

save the point? I'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way. He was on the member for giving way. He was on the table I spoke earlier. Does he agree it is the weights and measures bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is the weights and measures bill that protects our pint and we should not be scared is at risk? I regret if the honourable Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I regret if the honourable Lady has read the bill, she will find it confers those powers on the secular confers those powers on the secular state, but she can join with our benches in the other place by supporting the amendment, and the supporting the amendment, and the government can make clear today whether this is scaremongering or whether we should all be deeply concerned. By backing the amendment, and removing that life risk to the British. They can back the amendment anytime they want.

The bravery, I will be kind, the bravery of those sat opposite is impressive. Every single one of them will have to look at their constituency business owners in the eye, everything one of them will have to face constituents as they lose their livelihoods. The choices this government has made will put thousands of employers in the red and some out of business for good. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost. For just one second, I ask Labour members opposite to put themselves in the position of an employer telling their long-standing staff they can no longer afford to keep them on.

Those opposite don't understand business. Their interests are with the union paymasters not with the workers who will lose their jobs. They are petrified of celebrating success and supporting wealth creators. This is a government that is taking business for granted. It is devastating our economy, and we will all pay the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start by thanking members on all sides of the House for their sides of the House for their contributions to an excellent bit. contributions to an excellent bit. We heard contributions from my honourable friend for Glamorgan, Gateshead, Hexham, and more. We also heard interesting contributions from heard interesting contributions from the honourable lady from St Albans and her friend from Tunbridge Wells. Honourable members from Bakersfield, Bromsgrove, Dumfries and Galloway, Southampton Should west upper, Bromley, Kingswood, and South Staffordshire and in the two for the honourable member for Strathspey and the honourable lady.

My honourable friend in his opening remarks underlined we are taking the tough decisions now to support family businesses. We recognise absolutely the IP backbone of the economy, communities, society. Unlike the party opposite who crashed the economy, we are determined to champion family businesses. The Shadow Chancellor was sitting around the table and the cost of loans to family businesses went through the roof and they left this government with a huge black hole of £22 billion in public finances.

It's always interesting to listen to the Shadow Secretary of Business does not mention he was once in the
17:16
Gareth Thomas Portrait Gareth Thomas MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Harrow West, Labour )
-
-
Treasury helping to write the Liz Truss budget. Anything he wants to go on the record and apologise for go on the record and apologise for that, he will find me willing to let that, he will find me willing to let him intervene. He finished off as Business Minister, where record numbers of family businesses went numbers of family businesses went bust. We know that there are just bust. We know that there are just over 5 million family businesses in the UK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My constituents will be interested to hear from the Minister. There are over 5 million family business in the UK with the vast majority small businesses and for the first time in a decade and more, we will place them front and centre of the government plan to kickstart the economy. In our first almost 8 months, we have already taken significant steps to reverse the decline of the last 14 years, all of which will help create a stronger business environment for family businesses to grow.

An investment summit which created 30,000 jobs. -- 38,000 jobs. Starting the program to build new homes and kickstarting Great British Energy and record research and development spending, significant infrastructure investment and over £1 billion announced for the British Business Bank with more funding for start-up loans and the Growth Guarantee Scheme, which will help entrepreneurs take ideas from design to development and build the next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

generation of family businesses. I'm not sure if the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure if the Minister believed himself what he is reading. As any assessment been done of the collective impact the Budget changes will have to family businesses impacting the relief on APR and BPR. impacting the relief on APR and BPR. So, I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for mentioning them and I will come to them in due course. The Budget set out technical support for small businesses, especially those on the high street and many family businesses affected by shoplifting.

No one should underestimate the scale of problems inherited. Shoplifting is out of control and has affected family business for years and the police forces are not adequately resourced to respond. The Home Office has announced we are tackling this head on by scrapping immunity for low-value shoplifting and helping all family businesses. The Chancellor also announced additional funding to crackdown on organised gangs who target people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the Minister agree, someone who comes from a family business, who comes from a family business, would he agree with my experience that family businesses do not that family businesses do not operate in isolation? If you are ill operate in isolation? If you are ill in the morning, you cannot join the in the morning, you cannot join the merry-go-round for a GP appointment because of the stately Tories left the country in. You have to get to the country in.

You have to get to work because if the boss does not work, staff do not in. And the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pothole argument... Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. I agree with my honourable friend. In the Budget, we had to take tough decisions to fix the take tough decisions to fix the foundations of the economy, restore stability, begin to rebuild the stability, begin to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure my honourable friend alluded to and the terrible state of public services. terrible state of public services. We have raised National Insurance employer contributions and have employer contributions and have mitigated the impact by increasing employment allowance to £10,500, a record amount.

Small businesses will either be paying the same or less National Insurance contributions than now. Several honourable members rightly pointed out a lot of family businesses are high for this is with many run for successive generations - part and parcel of our communities. The party opposite did next to nothing to help family businesses on the high street and allowed thousands of bank branches to close and thousands of pubs and family businesses to go. That is why the government is focused on the 5- point plan to breathe life back into the economy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving me and he knows the Nationwide me and he knows the Nationwide Catering Association which represents independent and stricter businesses and it is based at my constituency and I thank him for the constituency and I thank him for the recent positive meeting we held. Under the previous government, they Under the previous government, they struggled to get a foot under the struggled to get a foot under the table. So there I was pleased to see my honourable friend and his business organisation and I hope to business organisation and I hope to have the opportunity to come to his constituency to see directly what we discussed in action at the meeting.

Our 5-point plan to breathe life back into the high street and addressing antisocial behaviour and retail crime means reforming the business sector, working with banking, stamping outlet immense, empowering communities to make the most of opportunities. We are delivering to support family businesses and other SMEs and we have extended districts relief. We are permanently helping these businesses, too. The main reasons the party opposite lost the confidence of British business is despite promising many times to reform business rates, they never did.

We are determined to do so, even at this late stage, though, and I hope the House and join me, even at this late stage I called the Scottish government will agree to cut rates for retail, hospitality in Scotland, echoing what we did here. Since Christmas, High Street Rental Auctions have allowed councils to tackle persistently vacant properties by putting leases up for auction and this is paving the way for further regeneration and growth at four new family businesses to imagine current family businesses on the high street to benefit from extra footfall.

Over 60% of small businesses have reported problems with late payments. We have already taken decisive steps to protect family businesses in this regard. We have announced measures to tackle late payments and contracts so that small firms are not within months on end for big firms to pay up. We will bring forward legislation to make further changes in this Parliamentary session at the launch of public consultation for measures that will go further still to tackle this problem. Two further help family businesses, we are creating a new business call service to bring together under one national banner a whole array of business services in the UK.

Later this year we will launch the small business strategy launch the small business strategy for boosting skill -- scale-ups and set out vision for all small businesses including the vast majority of small businesses, too. We have set out a whole series of measures to tackle the situation facing family businesses in this country. In his opening remarks, remarkably perhaps, the Shadow Chancellor failed to acknowledge that according to the latest PwC survey, the UK is the second best place in the world to invest and did not mention the IMF and OECD predict Britain will be the fastest growing G7 economy in coming years and admitted the UK is the only G7 economy other than the US to have the growth forecast grid by the IMF last month, accredited the decisions -- who have credited the decisions we made and the Budget.

There is still more to do and we are determined to get on with the task. Speak the question is us on the order paper. I've many of that opinion say, "Aye." And on the opinion say, "Aye." And on the
17:26
17:41
None Portrait Opposition Day Debate: British Indian Ocean Territory
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move the motion that stands in my name and the name of my right honourable
17:41
17:41
None Portrait Opposition Day Debate: British Indian Ocean Territory
-

Labour negotiates, Britain loses. And nowhere is this more obvious
17:41
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
than in Labour's botched embarrassing, humiliating and embarrassing, humiliating and secretive deal with Mauritius to surrender the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. In a world that is becoming increasingly world that is becoming increasingly dangerous and uncertain, when threats from both state and nonstate threats from both state and nonstate actors are growing, when our national economic and security interests face threats from new interests face threats from new technology, it is inconceivable that a government whose first concern and priority has to be the defence of the realm would give away one of the most important strategic military assets that we hold.

Let alone them pay a foreign government for its continued use. Let's be clear about this, this is like handing your House over to someone else and then having to pay the privilege of continuing to live there. Now I know... Not just yet. I know the socialist government are committed to the principles of redistributing wealth. They are even sharing about this on the benches opposite. But redistributing the sovereignty of key strategic and military assets in this way is not just socialism.

It's recklessness. It's incompetent, and quite frankly it is irresponsible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We cannot simply afford to gamble in any way when it comes to our national security and defence. I thank her very much for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her very much for giving way. I'm just a little bit confused, way. I'm just a little bit confused, and to be good to settle this. I think the honourable members... If think the honourable members... If the Conservative Party wants to take Tunbridge Wells back in the next election, they would do well to election, they would do well to listen to this member. The clarity that I would like from the shadow Foreign Secretary is why is she Foreign Secretary is why is she criticising a deal, the negotiations for which was started by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservative Party? Well look, I can't speak about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well look, I can't speak about the point that he is being confused at all, but let's just be very clear at all, but let's just be very clear about this. It's not a Conservative Party that has put forward a Party that has put forward a surrender deal. So let's be absolute crystal clear about that. We are not surrendering territory or our surrendering territory or our sovereignty in any way whatsoever. But while the Labour government But while the Labour government inspired by the dogmatic commitment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to misguided... I will give way. I'm most grateful to my right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm most grateful to my right honourable friend. Can I help the confused Liberal Democrats. I was in confused Liberal Democrats. I was in the Foreign Office during the whole of the Tory negotiations. So I of the Tory negotiations. So I witnessed exactly what my right honourable friend from Braintree and the Noble Lord Lord Cameron did in the Noble Lord Lord Cameron did in the negotiations. I could tell her, the House and the Liberal Democrats that the deal that has been done by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Labour Party is one which Tory minister's would never have countenanced. Well look, my right honourable friend is actually bringing me forward to some of my wider remarks, but he is actually right, they do want to thank him for his time in the Foreign Office because it was actually under Lord Cameron when all of this was stopped. But there are some other points to make actually. This is an advisory opinion, and we also note that in 2019, it was a Conservative government and Conservative foreign minister is that made that point and basically stopped all this nonsense from going on in the first place.

But this side of the House stands in support of the national interests. And I pay tribute to actually my colleagues, my previous colleagues and previous Conservative governments for resisting the efforts of some countries at the UN general assembly, including China and Argentina who voted in May 2019 to demand that the UK withdraw from its administration of the Chagos Archipelago within six months, and it was the former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron who does deserve credit for resisting these claims, made by Mauritius, and for ensuring that our sovereignty was not surrendered when he was Foreign Secretary.

So how he was Foreign Secretary. So how As Madam Deputy Speaker will know from the sheer volume of urgent applications her and Mr Speaker have presided over on this particular issue, this government has acted in a secretive manner. Providing little information on the deal that has been agreed and how it has been reached. Getting facts and information out of this government has been like extracting water from a stone. After asking many questions we have managed to secure some very good information.

What do we know? And the Frontbench you are chanting away -- who are chuntering away, maybe they would like to know perhaps three weeks after taking office on the 33rd of July 23 July the premised and the Foreign Secretary met with the foreign Minister of Mauritius. And what was discussed at that meeting we do not know. But on 10 September the Foreign Secretary announced Donovan Powell had been announced as the Special Envoy. And on 3 October less than three months after coming into office and when the House was not sitting the Foreign Secretary confirmed we waved the white flag of surrender.

He confirmed this Labour government would hand over the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory, pay a lease for the use of the base at Diego Garcia, the amount has been kept secret and paid towards funding and economic development partnership with Mauritius and ancient costume trust fund. Not only was this deal put together in haste and in secret serious concerns were raised about the time of this agreement. Then Mauritius Prime Minister called general election the following day in October 2024 and of course the presidential election of our allied partner in Diego Garcia.

The United States of America was held the following month. The result of both of these elections led to changes in administration which I will touch on Chorley. And the decision over the future of this keen strategic military asset has been taken in advance of the Strategic Defence Review being completed, the spending review and the China audit. How can the government justify giving away the Chagos Islands, losing control of this asset before it has thoroughly assessed the threats we face and our long-term defence and teen needs.

-- Defence and security needs. Unlike labour this side of the House believes decisions over the future of key strategic... I am qualified, if I may. If I may just caveat my remarks, unqualified pretend lawyers, not even actual lawyers. This side of the House leaves the decisions over the future of key strategic military assets cannot be taken and advisory opinions issued and by emotions agreed in International Organisations -- by emotions agreed by international organisations. A special and votes have been cast against us by nations and judges who may pose a threat to us and may have their own interest.

Britain is a global power and we face global threat and the base of Diego Garcia is one of the most important strategic and military assets in the Indo-Pacific for us and for our US partners. If the base of the Chagos Islands is lost, deleted or compromised we are dilutive. Our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rivals and competitors will grow stronger. I'm grateful to my right honourable friend the giving way. honourable friend the giving way. Does she agree if you are led by lawyers there is nothing wrong with that? But they should at least get that? But they should at least get the law right. If there is legal jeopardy here, does she agree we should understand what that jeopardy should understand what that jeopardy actually me -- actually is? The International Court of Justice cannot make a binding ruling against cannot make a binding ruling against the UK in this matter because Mauritius is a member of the Commonwealth.

We have not accepted their jurisdiction even the circumstances. Is this a good moment for the Minister to explain to us if there is legal jeopardy that makes a deal necessary, precisely what the legal jeopardy is?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My upright on and learned friend -- my right honourable and learned friend speaks sense on this issue. friend speaks sense on this issue. This is why I speak to him so much on the challenges facing this government. That is the point it really is. Turning to the substance really is. Turning to the substance or proposed substance of the proposed treaty, while this Labour government have failed to provide government have failed to provide any transparency over plans, we are fortunate the new Prime Minister of Mauritius and his government have been much more open and candid about the negotiations.

Sharing the details of the humiliating decisions Labour Ministers have made in this epic failure of diplomacy. Yes I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. I just wanted to properly pursue one other matter which is quite one other matter which is quite important. I was looking at a list of the judges who sat on this ICG panel and it is quite interesting panel and it is quite interesting that apart from there being a Russian who was fully supportive of Russian who was fully supportive of the invasion of Ukraine, it also turns out the Vice President who wrote the whole case also voted to support the Russian invasion of support the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is or was heavily involved in the Chinese government involved in the Chinese government prior to her becoming part of this.

What degree do we think this represents balanced and informed judgement as we would have in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK? But here it is international. My honourable friend is spot on and makes the point I have made. and makes the point I have made. There are people, judges in particular who clearly are particular who clearly are undermining our decision-making in our government and they are pursuing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our government and they are pursuing their own interests and that is where we have to call this out. Did my right honourable friend see the report in the Telegraph on see the report in the Telegraph on 26 February that one of the other judges, Patrick Robinson who took judges, Patrick Robinson who took part in that judgement believes the United Kingdom should be repaying at least £18 trillion in reparations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for slavery in the past? I did actually read that report and see it and I have to say this is and see it and I have to say this is exactly why we questioned this deal. This is the wrong approach. It really is. I am afraid for all of the lawyers sitting on the benches the lawyers sitting on the benches opposite and in the government, why are they not effectively looking at the integrity of this proposed deal? the integrity of this proposed deal? Or supposed lawyers.

And actually questioning and providing scrutiny questioning and providing scrutiny that is needed. Madam Deputy Speaker, we do need Ministers to confirm when they decided the proposed deal should be shared with the new American administration. Because there are so many questions as to how we got into this position. For weeks, Ministers refused to say and we have been here in the House at this Dispatch Box and they refused to same they would wait until President Trump took office. Including failing to answer questions here directly on January 14.

While they were refusing to say anything, the Mauritius government suggested Ministers here were not just ego but desperate to complete -- not just ego but desperate to complete the deal in January. And through a Downing Street briefing in January, not a statement of this House, we learnt the government would now wait to brief the new President and the Prime Minister of Mauritius has told his assembly it was a unilateral decision of the United Kingdom to postpone matters and that was taken on 15 January.

When the Minister response to this debate, will the Minister finally confirm on which date the government policy towards consulting the new US Adminstration and delaying the deal was agreed? I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend makes an excellent point. The attitude of the government of the United States is absolutely central to this. There is absolutely central to this. There has been a profound change in the start -- stance taken by the government of the United States with government of the United States with the election of the new President. Instead of embracing this and seeing this as an opportunity, the party this as an opportunity, the party opposite seem determined to railroad through a deal which it does not it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through a deal which it does not it appears command the support of the government of the United States. It is a preposterous position to be in. My right honourable friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend is absolutely right. It is shaping because these are exactly the questions were on the side of the House are putting forward to the government and they are refusing to be transparent and answer any questions whatsoever. The fact of the matter is the credibility and integrity of government is at stake. If they cannot come clean on the sides -- on these simple questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what else are they hiding? Only yesterday when a statement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Only yesterday when a statement was handed to the Leader of the Opposition, with redacted information. That is absolutely information. That is absolutely shameful. Because the duty of the opposition is to hold the government opposition is to hold the government to account. How can it do that if it does not get the information that is needed to make the best decisions for this country?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for this country? My honourable friend is absolutely right and I am afraid this is for the party in government to reflect upon their own conduct. The British public are about to have to fork out absolutely huge amount of money for a deal that has not had scrutiny. It had no public airing whatsoever. The lack of transparency is one thing but when we see this now being repeated across every government department and even the Prime Minister's statement, that is simply not acceptable.

There is something deeply civil about the conduct and the lack of transparency of this government. On the negotiations the Mauritius Prime Minister has publicly given a chronology of the counterproposals his government has put forward to change the agreement. The agreement reached and announced by his predecessor and the UK Prime Minister. He has stated to his National Assembly the part -- upon taking office in November guess what reviewed the deal. The same deal, exactly the same deal the Foreign Secretary has described as a very good deal.

And when he was confident Mauritius was still sure about that, really sure about that. And yet the Mauritian Prime Minister concluded the deal was so bad we said no way. There is video footage of this as well. It is available to everyone online to see. He claims he was online to see. He claims he was subsequently submitted a counter proposal to the UK and the UK government responded on 16 December. Then on 31 December Mauritius submitted its response to request a meeting in January which was quickly arranged and held.

That meeting took place, the Mauritius cabinet then met on 15 January and soon after they had had delegated -- soon after the delegation led by their Attorney-General, they came to London to meet with the Minister and to meet with the Attorney-General. According to the Mauritius there are a series of counterproposals and deals were exchanged when we asked the government about counterproposals being received and what they were, including a questions yesterday Deputy Speaker, Ministers have continues might have continuously refused to say.

I find it ridiculous this House has had to rely on Hansard and it is very good and I recommend colleagues we did. We have had to rely on that Hansard. To find out what the UK government Ministers are up to. That is why our motion demands the publication of criminology a chronology so we know what has happened. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether this account from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct. The Minister should also explain to the House the role the Attorney-General has been playing in these negotiations because written answers have stated his meeting with the Mauritius delegation last month was a courtesy meeting.

But the Prime Minister of Mauritius has stated when his Attorney-General met with his British counterpart Lord Homer and the Under-Secretary of State, the Minister in the Foreign Office they both assured him of the commitments of the UK government signing the agreement which was between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Giving that assurance seems to demonstrate the Attorney-General was actively playing a part in the negotiations, rather than attending a courtesy meeting in view of this previous interests in the British Indian overseas territory, questions will rightly be raised about his involvement.

Can the Minister confirm if the Attorney-General has foreclosed himself on these matters? Third, the account given by the premised of Mauritius that concessions have been made over sovereignty. Even though Ministers here have refused to confirm or admit it. The joint statement on 3 October said the initial period for 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century.

When we asked yesterday, the very question of whether the change had been made the Minister had said the fundamentals of the deal will remain the same. If the fundamentals of the deal remain the same why is it the Mauritius Prime Minister has said there have been changes? The British agreed. We insisted the sovereignty issue is the crucial and most important issue. We insisted it be clear that we have complete sovereignty on the Chagos. Including Diego Garcia. The British agreed that and this has been changed.

And why is it in the letter sent to me this week by the Foreign Secretary, he does not use the word sovereignty in relation to the word sovereignty in relation to the lease? Only stating the UK would retain all the rights and authorities we need to ensure the long-term secure and effective operation. The difference in the language between the joint statement from October and this letter to me matters. The Minister and the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister may not realise it but removing sovereignty is a fundamental change and it matters to the defence and the security of our country.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am extreme grateful to the honourable lady. The point she makes is not merely semantic. Because in is not merely semantic. Because in its law which I know holds great sway on the benches opposite those sway on the benches opposite those who interpret our entitlements will look closely at whether we have look closely at whether we have sovereign power or really, or only power by means of an agreement which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power by means of an agreement which He spot on, absolutely correct. Sovereignty matters, and the Minister couldn't admit it to the House yesterday and the chamber, but haps when the Minister sums up today, they could confirm that change in position. We need to know, have we lost sovereignty and loss control? Fourth, it is clear there has been a change in the lease agreements. It's absolutely crystal clear in this letter. And when the Foreign Secretary gave this statement on 7 October 2024, he stated the lease is initially for 99 years but the UK has the right to extend that.

And the impression given was that this could be unilaterally extended but he could not say the time that both parties

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be able to agree. I beg you indulgence, the reality is that the present Prime Minister publicly stated when he also by the publicly stated when he also by the way mentioned that the cost would be up to 18 billion, but apart from that, he did say the same time interestingly, we would have happily interestingly, we would have happily looked at joint sovereignty where it was clear that the British Government didn't want it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government didn't want it. Is absolutely correct, and I'm afraid it shows the lack of commitment to even understanding sovereignty...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Issue where there is a way ID a campaign Mike already a campaign led by local celebrities in Mauritius to ensure once sovereignty is restored to Mauritius, the treaty is to Mauritius, the treaty is rednecked on and an attempt is made to close the airport?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to close the airport? That is why on the side of the House we will be scrutinising the government even further on this, government even further on this, holding them to account. They simply do not value sovereignty and they are about to give away control, and that is simply not acceptable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is simply not acceptable. I thank her for giving way. This issue of sovereignty is totally crucial. First of all, it's not about restoring sovereignty to Mauritius. Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first place. Moreover, the moment at which the United Kingdom government concedes the point of sovereignty, all else is lost in negotiation. They have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not a leg to stand on. So clarity on this point is totally essential. He's absolutely right, and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's absolutely right, and the fact that this government just seems to have a complete disregard, and he's absolutely right that they never had sovereignty at all in the first instance. And now, look at the first instance. And now, look at the terrible mess. This is a complete surrender, and it's an epic failure surrender, and it's an epic failure when it comes to diplomacy. But we also know from the Mauritius... Shortly I will give way. We also know from the Mauritius Prime Minister that the lease extension provisions, guess what? Have been changed and deleted.

He told his National Assembly that the agreement was for an agreement of 99 years, and they unilaterally dish would decide on the extension of that agreement for 40 years. We had no say in it. We disagree completely. It cannot be that an agreement is signed for 99 years and then the British on their own with the site that they will review the agreement and we will have no say on it. He went on to say, and he has got this change stating, the extension has to be agreed with both parties.

It cannot be unilateral from the British, and I'm glad to inform, this is the Mauritius Prime Minister speaking in his National Assembly to the leader of their opposition, that the British have agreed also to do that. And in his letter to me, the Foreign Secretary remarked that the 99 year lease can be extended if both sides agree. We will have the right of first refusal. Meaning it can't be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing it.

Now this is quite frankly astonishing in terms of a response to receive and also a concession for the Labour government to make. This deal was bad enough at the outset. But now we know that despite the minister's claims that the fundamentals of the deal remain the same, we have gone from the UK being able to unilaterally extend the lease by 40 years to only now being able to extend it with the agreement of Mauritius. And there being a right of first refusal caveat in that lease too.

The House should be shocked by this. And we need answers. What would happen, and I urge the Minister to answer these questions when the Minister response, what happens at the end of the 99 year period if both parties cannot agree? What happens if we want to extend and Mauritius does not? What will happen to the base, to the equipment under the circumstances. What if at the end of 99 years, the price that Mauritius asks is too high? If we cannot unilaterally extend the lease, then guess what? We've lost control.

The Labour government may not realise this, but Mauritius knows this very very well. The British taxpayer knows this extremely well, and of course our enemies know this, and they are sitting back and watching, rubbing their hands with glee because on all the key negotiation points, Labour have backed down and Britain is losing control. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I think right honourable friend is making an incredibly important is making an incredibly important point about how the government is giving way, and we only know that because of the way that Mauritius is because of the way that Mauritius is actually going to the public. actually going to the public. Actually we are the ones who in this House we constantly left in the dark, so much so that even when I was on politics live yesterday with was on politics live yesterday with the Leader of the House, she refused the Leader of the House, she refused point-blank and totally lost the plot whenever I started to question her about what this Government was doing.

Isn't transparency absolutely an accord -- at the core of what we are doing in this government?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is aptly right, and you've heard many of us say this today as well, there is a failure to be transparent, and the fact that I transparent, and the fact that I have quoted today so much from the have quoted today so much from the Hansard from the Mauritius National Assembly, speaks volumes. It really does about the conduct of this government. It's been a great read I government. It's been a great read I have to say, and the video clips are astonishing. But I think I certainly think that this government should learn some lessons in terms of high

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standards. What she is describing is truly shocking. This Labour government is going to give away British sovereign territory, going to charge the poor elderly pensioners and business people in order to do so. Going to fundamentally fail its first duty to keep Britain safe by making our country less safe. What on earth is motivating him to do this dreadful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deal? There is plenty of speculation if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is plenty of speculation if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is plenty of speculation if I may say so in terms of why it is the government wishes to go down this course. And it's not in our this course. And it's not in our national interest, and I've got to say, the party opposite do not represent the national interest of this country when it comes to sovereignty and fighting for the real freedoms the British people real freedoms the British people believe in, but you've already heard me speak about the terms of the lease. The Labour government has lease.

The Labour government has also made concessions on the cost. The price the British taxpayers will be forced to pay because of this shambolic economically illiterate government. For weeks we've been asking about the cost, and any changes made from the position in October. And four weeks ministers have failed to give answers. But the Prime Minister of Mauritius has confirmed that concessions have indeed been made. He's told his National Assembly we also wanted to do frontloading. Some of the money has to be frontloaded.

He said that with a lot of enthusiasm when he made that point. And that also it's been agreed to. It was only after I wrote to the Foreign Secretary to highlight this to him that he has finally accepted that this has happened. And changes have been made. Writing in a letter to me, he said that there have been some changes to the financial arrangements to enable a limited element of frontloading, but the overall net present value of the treaty, that's payments which accounts for the impact of indexation has not changed since.

This change was not announced to the House. And nor did the Minister or any minister mention this in this chamber or when I raised this in the House yesterday. And while we know that the cost will be frontloaded, we still do not know what they will actually be. The Foreign Secretary has written to me in his letter to tell me that the £18 billion figure reported, and I quote, " Is false and significantly exceeds the quantum." So what is the figure? Is it 9 billion? Is it 12 billion? Is it 15 billion? Is it a higher or lower number? The Minister only needs to not to give some clarity on this.

Perhaps the Minister doesn't even know the cost. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. When the Defence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. When the Defence Secretary was asked this morning on LBC where is this funding coming from, he said there would be no from, he said there would be no payments unless and until the deal is struck. That's not answering the is struck. That's not answering the question. Who would go into a deal not knowing how they are going to pay for it? Say which budget is it pay for it? Say which budget is it coming from? Is it coming from FCDO coming from? Is it coming from FCDO budget? Is it coming from the defence budget? Is it included in the new defence budget spending or not? These are questions that the Prime Minister refused to answer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Does she have any thoughts of how we can get the answers out? I thank him for this really essential point and question, which essential point and question, which essential point and question, which has remained unanswered. At the end of the day, we do need to know, the government must be clear about where this money is coming from, from which budget. But in the fact that we don't even know the sums, this is taxpayers money. How can any government justify these extraordinary sums?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extraordinary sums? What is agreed universally is that the cost is £9 billion. The government doesn't question that at all. Whether there is frontloading or not, we don't yet know, but assume that its £19 million a year for 99 years. A lot of people in the media and in politics seem to have a basic problem with arithmetic and compounding. 19 million a year, indexed at 3% is 52 Ilion pounds. It's a completely eye watering some, and I'm very surprised that the opposition, His Majesty's loyal opposition are not using that number or perhaps they are just so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

embarrassed that they began negotiations themselves, I don't know. I think bottom line to all of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think bottom line to all of this, there is no transparency from this government at all, and we will absolutely press the government and told them to account on this. But I come back to the point, no minister, come back to the point, no minister, and we've just heard it from the and we've just heard it from the benches opposite behind us as well that not even the Defence Secretary today can actually tell us where today can actually tell us where that money was coming from.

And perhaps the Minister doesn't know the cost or perhaps she needs permission from the Attorney-General permission from the Attorney-General or Rachel from accounts to even comment on these numbers. But the House must know because Labour has sought to hide behind the real reason and what is going on here, and they are constantly using this loop of national security as to why they will not tell British taxpayers about how much this is going to cost. This is simply not acceptable whatsoever. And once if they won't tell us numbers, that they should at least be able to tell us where the budget has come from.

In a written parliamentary answer dated 22 November, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to me that he had engaged in discussions and reached an agreement with Cabinet colleagues on the financial elements of the proposed lease of the military base on Diego Garcia. As part of the Mauritius UK agreement announced on 3 October, so can the Minister confirm whether or not, can intervene now if the Minister would like to, if this is going to come from the defence budget? And if it does, will account the new 2.5% target announced by the Prime Minister yesterday? And it will be a stain on this government if they reach that target as a result of wasting this money.

Hard-pressed taxpayers money on this unnecessary lease. And we do deserve, the British public do need some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountability and transparency. Very grateful. She's been very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful. She's been very generous. Does she agree with me that the government stands accused of being perhaps guilty of some of being perhaps guilty of some creative accounting? Because if what it's doing is transferring money from the international development from the international development budget to defence, and then transferring the selfsame money from transferring the selfsame money from defence to Mauritius, allowing ministers to benefit from the fiction of an uplift in the defence budget of the public is entitled to smell a rat?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend is absolute right. This is completely duplicitous, it really is. And this is no way that any government should be conducting itself, particular on something like this. To conclude, in negotiating this deal and agreeing to surrender... I will. I did say I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would. Forgive me if she's going to come to this point in her final words, to this point in her final words, but isn't it extraordinary that we should be doing something that so many people in Washington profoundly object to when the Prime Minister is about to have an extremely delicate discussion with the president of the United States about whether he will reaffirm his security guarantees for the security and peace of our whole continent? And indeed for our country? Isn't this some kind gift that the government should take to Washington and say we will drop this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if you have the slightest objection? He is aptly right, and this is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is aptly right, and this is a critical time for our two countries when it comes to our place in the world but also our standing in the world. And we've been seeing from world. And we've been seeing from this government is an epic failure of diplomacy, making concession of diplomacy, making concession after concession. Labour have shown themselves to be weak. Not only have they undermined our strategic they undermined our strategic defence interests, very close relationship obviously with our DLI. They are putting our territories at They are putting our territories at risk, wasting taxpayers money.

Anita governor stands tall in the world, that will fly the Union Flag with pride rather than the white flag of pride rather than the white flag of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is this House is motion It is this House is motion to It is this House is motion to defend Britain's national interest. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. Before I call the Minister there will have to be an immediate five minute time limit on Backbench contributions. That excludes Front Benches.
18:15
Anneliese Dodds Portrait Rt Hon Anneliese Dodds MP, Minister of State (Development) (Oxford East, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Benches. Thank you. I am grateful to the right honourable lady for bringing right honourable lady for bringing this opposition debate. As she knows for over 50 years the UK US based on for over 50 years the UK US based on Diego Garcia has been in the Indo- Pacific supporting critical missions against terrorists, countering hostile states and keeping us in the rest of the world say. This government is committed to protecting our piece, protecting our position and capabilities in the Indian Ocean and protecting national security.

The deal we have negotiated achieves all of these goals. It is rooted in a rational and hardheaded determination to protect our country's security which is the first duty of every government. It is this government that is delivering and not ducking questions as she well knows. The status quo is not sustainable. I will make progress. Then I will be very happy to take interventions. The status quo is not sustainable. It empowers UK and US strategic interests. The dealer she knows which is necessary.

-- Deal which she knows is necessary. It will continue the uninterrupted operation of the base at Diego Garcia well into the next century. It will cement US and UK presence in the Pacific for generations to come and I have not heard a single suggestion in her lengthy speech about how she would secure that base at all? These operations have been under increasing threat for decades. She knows this and many on her benches also know it. Claims there were no legal necessities to negotiate are absolutely wrong.

They misunderstand the legal jeopardy. And immediate operational challenges the base faces. I will command that. Ever since the legal certainty of the base was called into doubt Madam Deputy Speaker, its ability to operate in practical terms as it should be able to given it is such a critical facility has been undermined. I know she is aware of undermined. I know she is aware of this. The 2019 ICJ advisory opinion may be the most eye-catching of the legal develop means in recent years but...

I will happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to bring The right honourable lady Black to his statement. There was an imperative statement. There was an imperative to resolve that. She knows very well to resolve that. She knows very well in the original agreement it is very clear and has been made clear by the Attorney-General nothing regarding Attorney-General nothing regarding the Commonwealth actually falls within this is a Director. It is advisory by definition. This is the advisory by definition. This is the question to the right honourable lady, the government also has the bottom of that agreement a waiver that if they want therefore to dismiss that they can go ahead with it on that basis.

The right honourable lady, does she accept and will she answer this question, has this government issued a waiver on their provision that nothing has to be a directive from this accord? Have they issued it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman is well aware of course we know about that ICJ carveout in relation to the Commonwealth. This is common Commonwealth. This is common knowledge. I find it slightly strange she is presenting this is something the House is not aware of. Very peculiar indeed. And he would Very peculiar indeed. And he would have done well to wait for the rest of what I was going to say in of what I was going to say in relation to legal jeopardy. Because this is by no means, I will make this is by no means, I will make progress.

This is by no means... I have said I will make progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the shadow Minister will know, the Minister is not obliged to take interventions from the Dispatch Box. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you. Quite the opposite I'm going to explain to the opposite benches because they are perhaps unaware of the fact that ICJ advisory opinion is simply the most eye-catching of a huge number of legal concerns around the present legal concerns around the present situation. And those who had the situation. And those who had the genuine security of that base at the front of their minds, they would be determined to secure its future. Without a deal it is inevitable Mauritius would pursue a legally binding judgement against UK sovereignty for since 2015 there have been 28 international churches and arbitrators who have expressed...

On the Chagos Islands. The members opposite are keen to shout, I wonder if they can tell me how many have agreed with the UK position? They are very quiet Madam Deputy Speaker. That is because not a single one of those arbitrators and judges have expressed support for the UK claim about sovereignty. This lack of legal certainty would have real world impact on base operations and would create space for our enemies. Some of those impacts would be on simple but crucial things like securing contractors and getting overflight clearances.

I regret the opposition said not a single word about that issue of securing contractors again to -- and getting overflight clearances. There were other matters they did not talk about. Very happy to give way. I mixed really grateful to her for giving way. She is absolutely entitled to explain what the government's position is. But if her argument is there is legal uncertainty here she better get used to it. Because there is legal uncertainty about a lot of things.

If her argument is lots of people disagree with the U.K.'s position, she also better get used to that. As I have understood the government position, it has thus far been the advisory opinion we have received may one day become a binding judgement against the UK obliging the UK government to act as it now seeks to do. My question is simply, I want to know from where may that binding judgement come? I have not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yet heard that answer. Thank you. I noted when The Right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I noted when The Right Honourable learned gentlemen talked about the potential world consequences coming from legal consequences coming from legal uncertainty that someone those benches actually laughed but we do benches actually laughed but we do not find this subject and amusing one. We view this as incredibly one. We view this as incredibly serious. If we do not have a deal serious. If we do not have a deal with Mauritius they would have every incentive and the members opposite know this, they would have every incentive to do a deal with someone else.

We would face the risk of joint military exercises around the base. I did not hear a single word about that from the benches opposite. We would face the risk of other countries setting up outposts and surrounding islands. Again not our concern it appears that the opposition benches. And we would have the risk of hostile actors trying to interfere with crucial communications. And crucial communications they are. That is what is in our strategic defence interest. Which she mentioned.

Without a negotiated solution, no I will make progress. Without a negotiated solution, no I will keep speaking as is my right. Without a negotiated solution with Mauritius they would pursue their legal campaign. They made that very clear as the honourable gentleman knows. That would lead to an inevitable legally binding judgement. That would be...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. I will not have this level of shouting at the Minister. I will of shouting at the Minister. I will hear her. And of course it is within hear her. And of course it is within her right not to take intervention. Please can members approach this in an orderly fashion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an orderly fashion. Thank you. As I was saying, if we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. As I was saying, if we saw that kind of situation then we would unfortunately see would unfortunately see international organisations following that determination. Organisations like the International Telecom on occasions union. -- Telecommunications Union. I heard from the Frontbench, let them have a go. The consequences of letting them have a go could be critical spectre patella communications that is absolutely essential for our security it could be compromised. Again an issue of which I heard nothing, sadly from the opposite benches.

The legal necessity of this deal has been recognised rightly by successive governments. And that is why of course, I do think it is risible, I agree with the chuntering. The Conservatives undertook 11 rounds of negotiation on this subject and they simply will not admit to having done so. Indeed the right honourable lady seated herself -- said herself it was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something she could not speak about. I'm grateful. She is really at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. She is really at risk of not necessarily being accurate in her remarks. She is absolutely right the Conservative government went into negotiations government went into negotiations with Mauritius. She seems to think at the start of the negotiations means the end result must be capitulation and abiding by capitulation and abiding by Mauritius's ideas. Can I remind him Mauritius's ideas. Can I remind him before other members stand up and read out the Labour Party briefing it was a Conservative Foreign Secretary under Lord Cameron who deemed those negotiations were not going in the British national interest and end of them.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I find the approach of the opposite benches very confusing. Something as I say confusing and Something as I say confusing and shocking. We cannot speak about those 11 rounds of negotiation. We those 11 rounds of negotiation. We had moments ago an intervention stating they must have been completely different in content. completely different in content. Without actually spelling out why they were different in content. I they were different in content. I find this a peculiar situation Madam Deputy Speaker.

Of course there are many things the Conservatives started which my side of the House did not want to continue economic chaos and damaged -- and damage to our public services. They did begin those negotiations and indeed had 11

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rounds of them. Happy to. I thank the honourable lady for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable lady for giving way. I am not a learned giving way. I am not a learned former Attorney-General like some of my colleagues. Between ordinary my colleagues. Between ordinary Labour person -- but to an ordinary person it sounds like the honourable lady is prepared to give away lady is prepared to give away sovereign British territory and millions of taxpayers hardened many simply encase someone brings in a Court case that may appear at some point in the future.

Please can you show me that is not true? Thank you. I have to say I think the ordinary general public would be pretty concerned about a situation... They laugh about the risk of joint military operations around the base. They laugh about the risk of other countries setting up outposts and surrounding islands and they seek to be unconfirmed but unconcerned by the threat of hostile action trying to interfere with communications, those matters are of concern to the public and they are of concern to the government for as well.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order. Thank you. I apologise but to prevent the Minister inadvertently misleading the House we have it in a Parliamentary question from Sir Parliamentary question from Sir Chris Bryant ironically, the international...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

international... Order. Mr Francois you know you must not refer to members by the name. Four

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister for telecommunications, the International telecommunications Union has no power to veto the use
18:29
None Portrait Points of Order
-

Union has no power to veto the use of military spectrum. That is the government official position. So they could not interfere with satellite. Does the Minister now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wish to correct her remarks? I think I will respond to the point of order first which the point of order first which the shadow Minister will not know but -- will note was not a point of order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but a point of debate. I do not want to embarrass the honourable gentleman. Surely he honourable gentleman. Surely he understands the difference between access to spectrum which is the key issue here. It is critical and I issue here. It is critical and I find it strange he allots that issue so little consideration. When it could be of such strategic The Right Honourable Eddie talked about remarks from the motion Prime Minister. It appears she's been looking at length on the internet and really spend a lot of time doing so.

I find it rather strange that she didn't see what he stated on 5 February because on 5 February he set the record straight about the terms of the deal. Perhaps she doesn't know about this but -- does know about this but chose not to refer to it in her remarks. He confirmed that what this governor has been saying with clarity and consistency since the announcement of a political agreement in October, let me spell out what we said about the duration in terms of the treaty and what Prime Minister of Mauritius confirmed which seems to have been missed in previous comments.

The deal will be for 99 years and can be extended if both sides agree. The UK will additionally have a right of first refusal, meaning that the island cannot be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing. And there are no changes to the rights and authorities that we will have to operate the base. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the treaty after signature when it is laid for scrutiny under the crag process before ratification.

We would be delighted to have her scrutiny of course as would be usual. On a different subject, to suggest there was an acceleration of these negotiations before the Mauritian elections flies in the face of the fact as has been the case with many of the opposition's comments on this, when we took office these negotiations had already been ongoing for two years. We continue to engage with the Mauritian government and to work in lockstep with the United States. Whilst we recognise that it was in the interest of all sides to finalise the deal quickly, we didn't put a completion date on the negotiations.

We did not do so then, and we do not intend to do so now. We are of course engaging with the new US administration, of course, including of course discussing the full details of the agreement. Just as we engaged indeed with the previous US administration. I find this rather strange that the opposition are confused around the nature of modern negotiations. Now as we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statement on 20 December and 13th of January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos Archipelago, which protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK US base on Diego Garcia.

Continuing the practice of the previous government, and as is usual in these circumstances, negotiations have been led by officials with clear guidance and oversight from ministers. And on the question...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have a feeling I might need visibility -- invisibility cloak visibility -- invisibility cloak that might well help us in Ukraine, but the point, Sibley asked this, and the nature of transparency, the and the nature of transparency, the negotiators have been given a negotiation to be able to do. They tell us which budget this funding tell us which budget this funding will come out of? Yes they must know when they go to negotiate what they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are actually negotiating. More than happy to go into the financial question in a few moments financial question in a few moments because this again sadly is an issue about which the opposition had been deeply confused. So I will come to that in a few moments. Now on the question regarding the Attorney- General, he met his Mauritian counterpart for a courtesy call indeed, just as was stated in fact when he was in the UK in January. This meeting did not form part of the formal negotiations.

Again I find it strange that the term formal negotiations is not understood by the opposition benches, that they are confused on this point. And of course on the broader question, the Attorney-General has been clear just as with every other Attorney-General whenever a conflict might be identified in any hypothetical circumstance, that will be dealt with as part of the proper process, and he would reduce himself if that were needed. Now on the financial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue, I'm happy to... I appreciate the honourable ladies budget has been cut so much she has now put on the suicide watch to defend the un-defensible for the to defend the un-defensible for the government. Now I appreciate that the howls of outrage from the the howls of outrage from the benches opposite are going to be confected over this issue for the simple reason that the honourable lady has got nothing to add on a budget, budgetary question that has gone from $13 billion to six, and now it's coming out of her budget.

What the honourable lady be absolutely clear with this government, with this House rather that there is no way that she will be taking hard earned taxpayers money that should be going to support the poorest in the world and instead paying of a government that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually has no legal plain? Thank you. And I know the
18:36
Anneliese Dodds Portrait Rt Hon Anneliese Dodds MP, Minister of State (Development) (Oxford East, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I know the honourable gentleman is honourable. I think he may wish perhaps to I think he may wish perhaps to reflect on the beginning of his remark because I'm sure it conveyed something that is not his normal style at all. On the question that he asked around finances, it's very clear that financial element was vital to securing a deal of such a vital base over the course of 99 years. If we don't pay, I will say it again, someone else will.

Our adversaries would jump at the chance to establish outposts on the outer islands. There has been a lot of inaccurate spec elation about the costs of this treaty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I genuinely appreciate the opportunity she has given me to speak on this, but I'd like to speak on this, but I'd like to clarify a point. He said a couple of times now, I want to understand. She keeps saying if we don't pay, someone else will. Who would be the recipient of that payment, recipient of that payment, considering the Chagos Islands are considering the Chagos Islands are reddish sovereign territory? Is she suggesting another country would pay arts? And if another country was arts? And if another country was going to pay Mauritius, why would they pay Mauritius? Because the Chagos Islands don't belong to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mauritius. Thank you. I know that the right honourable gentleman understands full well this is because of the legal uncertainty that is created by the current situation that has been recognised time and again that was the reason why the government engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations, and that's why there is that problem, and I'm surprised that the opposite benches are so unconcerned about the contestation we see in that part of the world and the need for our country's interest to be put first.

I will not take an fission or intervention because my response has been very clear indeed. Now on the subject, of inaccurate speculation about the cost of the treaty, Prime Minister of Mauritius has confirmed that the reports of doubling in value are completely false. The overall cost of the deal has not changed from the -- that negotiated by the former Prime Minister. There have been some financial arrangements... I was just about to get onto that. To enable a limited element of frontloading, but the overall net present value of the treatment payments, which accounts for the impact of indexation is not higher than it was.

And I will not press this point. It would be very unfair to the opposing benches. I have no doubt when they talk about economic illiteracy, they would not be surely falling into the trap of confusing timing with magnitude. Surely there would not be falling into that trap. Because it's a pretty obvious difference between the two things. We will provide more information on the departmental budgetary rights in due course. The details will be set out in the treaty is laid before Parliament.

And we've seen more bizarre claims about this issue, even just within this debate. We heard wild enough once earlier when the Leader of the Opposition had her say, and the Prime Minister explained that she was wide of the mark. Now of course as colleagues would expect, any funding arrangement and the departmental split of any cost arising from the treaty with Mauritius will be finalised through the spending review. I have to say, I've been used to some pretty wild maths at points from the maths at points from the Conservatives.

We had the true Tory kamikaze budget, but they are surpassing themselves here because it's ridiculous to compare... I will continue to explain why their attempt to compare speculative figures for the lifetime cost of a 99 year long agreement to protect our national security cannot be compared with an annual uplift to defence spending which is the largest since the Cold War. There is clearly a difference of many many orders of magnitude. And I feel that they really need to reflect on this while they are making such bizarre claims.

Now although this has necessarily been a state to state negotiation with our priority being to protect the base, we recognise the importance to Chagossians and have worked hard to ensure this agreement ensures the agreement to them. Some estates farcical to talk about Chagossians. I don't believe it's farcical. As we've already announced, we will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian community. We will work with Mauritius to start a new program of visits for Chagos Islands to the Chagos Archipelago, including two Diego Garcia.

And Mauritius will be free to develop a program of resettlement on the islands other than Diego Garcia. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

separate to the agreement... Happy too. I have to say, she is putting up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to say, she is putting up a very loyal and heroic defence of her government's policy. But I predict that if the government persists with this proposal, it will become a running sore for the government party, and they will rue government party, and they will rue the day because the British people will know that they have just given will know that they have just given away a sovereign territory unnecessarily, and what's more, they've put the icing on the cake with billions of pounds of taxpayers money.

They will never live it down. So my advice to the government is correct while you can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I do appreciate the kind tone in which she the kind tone in which she expressed, the right honourable gentleman expressed his remarks. However, I would say respectfully, However, I would say respectfully, that the running sore has been a situation that has led to our situation that has led to our countries national security being subject to legal jeopardy because subject to legal jeopardy because this issue had not been resolved. The government, on whose benches of The government, on whose benches of course he sat previously negotiated 11 rounds with Mauritius on this subject, and that is what this government has been determined to make progress on for the sake of our national security, and I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to my honourable friend. I would ask, what was the point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would ask, what was the point of the opposition starting a negotiation if there was no intent negotiation if there was no intent to reach an agreed solution? And if there was a red line which they are there was a red line which they are now saying there is, where is it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

published? Well I couldn't have said it better myself. Indeed, that is the number of the point. on the point of Chagossians, I do want to inform the House that we will also increase our support to Chagossians who were living in the UK and around the world to renew an existing project. I know another issue that has been of considerable interest to members has been of course the environment. We have secured a deal that will help protect the unique environment of the Chagos Archipelago.

One of the world's most important marine environments, to which both the UK and Mauritius have committed. The agreement will be supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius, under which the UK will support Mauritius's ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos Archipelago. And that's particular important and it comes to protecting their biodiversity, when it comes to ensuring they are protected against threats like illegal fishing and unreported and unregulated fishing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for giving way. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for giving way. I am struck by the fact it did take nearly an hour of discussion and nearly an hour of discussion and debate in this chamber before that was mentioned for the first time. Not a simple member of her Majesty's Not a simple member of her Majesty's loyal opposition chose to mention or consider this in their multiple interventions. I however have spoken interventions. I however have spoken to Chagossians for many months and to Chagossians for many months and years.

I have spoken to Chagossians over many months and years. And one of the things they have told me is they are genuinely fearful, genuinely fearful of being traded from the United Kingdom to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sure the honourable gentleman is getting to his point but interventions really should be shorter than this. He could have put into speak in the debate had he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into speak in the debate had he wished. A few more moments that is all. I would simply ask the Minister what role have Chagossians played in the negotiations up until this the negotiations up until this point? The honourable lady mentions our marine protection area. I know for a fact Chagossians have not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

involved in that in particular. Thank you. He is right to raise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. He is right to raise this issue of course he understands the negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius but that priority as we indeed have been discussing to secure the full operation of the base Diego Garcia. However we do recognise the importance of the islands. Of course to Chagossians and that is why they were engaged with after this deal. I think it is very important to respect the fact there are different views within the Chagossian community. They do not Chagossian community.

They do not speak with one voice as of course no community does. And for example, the Chagos refugees group, one of the largest Chagossian groups has welcomed the agreement. We will continue to ensure we are happy -- having those discussions, particularly those of course based in the UK. On the subject of the environment, just to lastly mention this agreement with its environmental focus has been welcomed by instrumental conservation NGOs, including the zoological's London. -- The zoological Society of London.

Happy too.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could she just at this moment acknowledge the hardship and the horrors that all Chagossians have horrors that all Chagossians have been through? Ever since they were illegally expelled from the islands illegally expelled from the islands many years ago. And they all deserve many years ago. And they all deserve recognition and that the islands themselves should never have been separated from magicians -- separated from Mauritius anyway. We are now correcting an historical wrong. I would ask her to not be inviting down a new colonial route

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the Conservative party today. Thank you. I would not be invited

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I would not be invited down any route by the Conservative party because I think we all know where it leads to rack and ruin. Of course that situation for course that situation for Chagossians, many of them have been Chagossians, many of them have been through very difficult situations. I know it is an area of concern to those members, particularly where they represent a number of UK-based they represent a number of UK-based Chagossians. That is why as I said that engagement has been important.

In conclusion this deal has had support across the US national security apparatus. Fine I will take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one last intervention. The honourable lady is putting up a gallant fight in a very difficult situation. For the avoidance of situation. For the avoidance of doubt is she saying there is another doubt is she saying there is another cause of the ICJ -- Court other than the ICJ that could compel this the ICJ that could compel this country to give up the Chagos Islands and if so will she identify

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that Court? What I have said is there is clear risk to critical functions of that base on Diego Garcia because of legal jeopardy. The benches opposite do not appear to be aware of those issues for contractors, for insurers, for community? The risk of heart health states like the risk of hostile states when it comes to the island. The government is concerned about that risk. I did detail earlier the 28 different judges and arbitrators who have expressed an opinion and I am to say it is simply for the birds to say there is no legal jeopardy here.

In conclusion as I was stating, this deal has had support across the US national security apparatus. The previous US Adminstration supported the deal. The new US administration is rightly ensuring they are satisfied. The deal has been welcomed by India and the UN Secretary-General. The right honourable lady mentioned China in her remarks. I know again Conservative governments have been confused about China. They have oscillated all over the place and their relationship -- in their relationship. I wonder if anyone could tell me if China has welcomed this deal? No.

A pin could drop. They have not welcomed it because they know it will strengthen our country's position in the region for the foreseeable future. Security has to be our priority. But we have also negotiated an agreement protects the unique marine environment and reflects Chagossians demands. This deal will protect the base, solidify our relationship with our closest allies and reinforce the U.K.'s global leadership. Anyone who values UK national security and that of our allies should back this deal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Thank you. Before I address the
18:51
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Before I address the position of the government I feel obliged to respond to the comments of the shadow Foreign Secretary. Who has so kindly spent her evenings has so kindly spent her evenings reviewing the proceedings of the Russian parliament for all our benefit. She has pressed the government and why it has advanced steel. Yet she had no answer to wife honourable and gallant friend for Tunbridge Wells -- to why my Tunbridge Wells began talks with Mauritius. Talking about lawyers and the judiciary are consistent with the party that has long since given up on upholding the rule of law.

The right honourable and learned member Kenilworth is a lone voice in standing up for the forcible. He rightly observed the UK does not subject itself to the rulings of the ICJ in respect of pretentious cases with Commonwealth countries. Yet he raises two points which the right honourable lady did not address. Firstly the UK has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and its predecessors since 1929. And second that since this discussion flows from an advisory opinion of the ICJ which she now says is unjustifiable or irrelevant, why did the Conservative government feel compelled to begin talks and conduct more than 10 rounds of negotiations? Liberal Democrats unlike the Conservatives or reform believe the UK is stronger when it works cooperatively with other countries.

Stronger when it supports the rule of international law and stronger when it takes action to support international institutions. That is why we believe the UK should take seriously the advisory opinion of the ICJ and other legal opinions on this question. And why the Conservative government was right to open negotiations and the Labour government was right to continue them. All that said the process of agreeing a treaty over the last few months has been nothing short of shambolic. There are three critical issues in this sorry tale and I regret to say the government has failed on each of them.

First the security of the United Kingdom. The decades Diego Garcia has been a key strategic asset. It is important like it's important has only increased over time due to the increasing threat and aggression shown by China full the chaos of this negotiation has not given any reassurance our security is being safeguarded. Second as my honourable friend has mentioned, the rights of the Chagossian people, since the 1960s they have been displaced and decisions taken about them without them. To use the phrase the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have recently adopted, in October I met with outside Parliament Chagossians who live in the UK and want to have a say in the future of the islands.

They were highly critical of not playing a part Mike being a part of these negotiations. Third the role of Parliament in these negotiations. Little delegates have long argued international treaty should come to this House before signature so parliamentarians can scrutinise the government's proposals. In this case the government rushed to an agreement with Mauritius and promptly it unravelled. I have the Russian parliament and Donald Trump -- why have the Russian parliament and Donald Trump been given a say but this Parliament have not? They refuse to provide detail of this deal to Parliament.

If it is true the cost is in excess of £9 million, taxpayers in the UK will want to know how the government has found this funding when Winter Fuel Payments are being scrapped, family farms are being threatened and charities and providers are being hit with national insurance increases. Can the Minister please tell me what security guarantee is contained in the draft treaty? Will Parliament be given a vote on the treaty before it is signed? How much will be paid to Mauritius as part of the deal? And will the Chagossians be included in the future process of agreement?
18:55
Calvin Bailey Portrait Mr Calvin Bailey MP (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. The party opposite pretends to recognise the seriousness, the serious threats we face but bringing forward yet another debate on this topic just as our Prime Minister heads out to Washington in order to broker a just peace for Ukraine is an act of blatant sabotage against our national interest. Yesterday we saw a superficial and unconvincing performance of consensus from the opposition frontbench who cannot bring themselves to recognise this government is delivering on national defence of security commitments in a way that they could not for the past 14 years in particular with relation to our 2.5% increase to GDP and on defence spending to protect our country.

Let's face it the Leader of the Opposition are so desperate for shares next she is incapable of delivering and engaging in geological sobering realities. Just at the moment the national consensus is needed. The truth is none of us know the financial security components of the proposed deal with Mauritius. Which means the purpose of this debate is unclear. It is not intended to enable an honest and informed debate about how we can best secure our defence in the Indian Ocean over the next century.

Instead it is designed to maximise the chance of damaging disputes about this with our US allies just at the moment when all our energy and diplomatic capital needs to be brought to bear to persuade the US of the need for continued commitments to European security and security guarantees for Ukraine. It is why certain voices have turned up today when they have been absent in all of our national security discussions or discussions in Ukraine. If the opposition succeeds in this it will do enormous damage to our national security.

And that of our European allies. Another aspect of this issue the opposition is determined to disregard the fundamental importance of the rule of international law to our national interest and security. First and foremost this is critical to our diplomacy and support of Ukraine. Russia's invasion is a clear breach of the UN Charter and it is on that basis the many countries around the world continue to vote with us. Including earlier this week in cases where they are non- aligned.

I fully understand there are a range of views about the legalities but the direction of travel is clear. We cannot uphold the principle of a rules-based international order on one hand while completely disregarding multiple findings of international Court on the other. And finally as I have said many times now and this place, my experience of this -- of discussions with US defence colleagues show a clear and settled preference for legally binding and secure agreements. Particularly around the bases like the basic arrangements.

Those preferences are important for long-term relations with relationships with the US and so is the clear support for the deal from India whose partnership we must prise highly in this increasingly fragmented world. These live diplomatic questions should be dealt with sensibly. -- Sensitively. And in a way that seeks cross-party sun sensors -- cross-party consensus across the House at this critical time and we need to present a united face to a bitterly divided world. Ultimately if a treaty with Mauritius is delivered it will ensure the continued ability of UK and US defence and assets to operate in the region for many decades to come.

That objectively, that objective is vitally important for our national security in contrast to the opposition's motion today which does nothing but undermine. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are short on time and I know others want to come in so I will try to be as brief as possible. The point of order on the honourable point of order on the honourable gentleman, my neighbour and I respect very much, don't agree with him fully on this, but I have to say him fully on this, but I have to say he makes his point forcibly, but the one point I want to come back to his legal uncertainty. The point about legal uncertainty as if it is unclear whether or not the original judgement from the ICJ was stirred
19:00
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
judgement from the ICJ was stirred as an absolute judgement, and of course we know very well that the section of that agreement said quite clearly any dispute with the government and any other country which has been a member of the Commonwealth is therefore beyond them. So when they make their ruling, it was clear from the very beginning this was an advisory judgement. It was not a judgement based in a legal position. It was simply advisory. I also remind what I said earlier on, that many of those who are part of that judicial process are themselves not really long-standing judiciary in the senses we would understand it here in the UK, so many are political.

President, she was on this from the word go and has been heavily engaged working within the Chinese government for some considerable time. And whether or not we think that China has welcomed something and they are not that stupid as to publicly welcome something to give us an excuse to say it's terrible, they said that as someone who were sanctioned by them, and the reality is that they are there as the major threat. The point I simply make is that China watchers this and knows that they are far better and stronger position if there is considerable doubt here about what is going on with ownership.

And that's the problem we face from the word go, did ask The Right Honourable Adie a very important question. I don't believe the last government when it entered into discussions perceived that requirement that the Commonwealth issues cannot be touched by this accord. They have to under that agreement wave if they are going to subdue themselves to the judgement of the court. And of course I ask her again, and I will happily take this intervention, has the government, and before she starts giving us that kind of lecturing look, let me say to her...

Listen, I'm very happy instead of dwelling on this, if she could just answer this question. I will take this intervention, did this government at any stage during these negotiations waive their right not to see this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other than as advisory? If she wants to give way on that, will she say have they waved that exemption? I made that very clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I made that very clear previously. That carveout for the Commonwealth is very clear than the Commonwealth is very clear than the ICJ. And I'm terribly sorry, I think actually looked to him with a smile. If that is somehow intellectually If that is somehow intellectually away, then I'm sorry about that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to say to the honourable lady, it's irresistible, the main lady, it's irresistible, the main point I say to her, that is as clear as mud. A very specific question, did they waive their right over this particular agreement? That makes this from the word go not inconclusive and not therefore a mysterious judgement. It is an advisory judgement and the government has no reason or pressure to accept it. That means that other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legal case... Is the right honourable member agree that the irony that we apparently willing to get judgement from a judge for China who oversaw from a judge for China who oversaw the erosion of the rights of the people of Hong Kong in violation of our agreement with them is really shocking to me and shows the weaknesses in being slavishly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adherence to international law. The interesting point about this is, and I raise it because the is, and I raise it because the honourable gentleman who spoke before me, he said that we should essentially remember that this is also about the security of Ukraine and others. I fully agree with him, but three of those judges voted against sense year of Russia when they invaded Ukraine, so we have to be very careful about this because their ulterior motive is something quite different from what he quite legitimately claims to be one of our reasons.

And I fully agree with him on that basis. So obeying the law, this is the law. We do not have a judgement from a court that can be held by other United Nations bodies as standing. And that is the case, then all of the other legal points that were raised with the government after the realise this was advisory, don't stand idle because it would be ultra vires of these bodies to suddenly claim that there was judgement against us and therefore bodies such as the International telecommunications Union to act on the basis would also itself be in transgression of what was in the original agreement.

And just simply say to the honourable lady, and the honourable gentleman spoke to the Liberal Democrats, but I just want to raise quickly, the fact that Chagossians I have spoken to have all said they would rather be UK passport holders and they just want to go home. And going home means that by judgement in the '60s gets turned around and they can go back to their territory for top I would have loved that to happen from day one. That would have solved this point.

They don't want to be under the suzerainty of any other country than the UK and have their possessions back. And so the reality is we didn't really ask them about that, and we should have done from day one. And I must simply also say that it would help the government's arguments that they are acting in the public interest if they were much more open about what has been going on within these negotiations. There is a legitimate question. We all unite behind the idea of the Prime Minister raising defence spending.

We wish him the best when he goes to Washington. It's in our public interest, and I would stand against nobody on the basis of my support for him on this, and made it clear yesterday on Prime Minister's Questions. In the statement. And the reality I therefore ask, why is it that they simply will not answer this question about where any money in this agreement is going to be taken from? Surely that would end all the debate. They don't have to say what the amount is.

They simply have to say it will come from the defence budget, it will come from whatever budget it is. And if they said that, that would make it look open, and with the police also open up about what they've been discussing because it's all stored now, somebody they should reflect on the difficulty. The reality is that I think this whole process has been ill thought through, and the reality is that what we need now to do is to make sure that the government stops, free things its process and doesn't search for excuses that are not legal at all but actually accepts the fact that our security and that of the whole of the trade unions that cross through this are under threat if the government proceeds

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with this process. Thank you. I'm pleased to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm pleased to speak in this debate, however it is disappointing that his majesties opposition feel the need to use part of their Opposition Day to debate this issue given that important negotiations continue between His negotiations continue between His Majesty government and on the future Majesty government and on the future of the Chagos Islands. It's never of the Chagos Islands. It's never wise to gather around commentary of complex negotiations. Perhaps the opposition should have been more patient.

However, I understand that these negotiations so far have been productive with both countries reiterating their commitment to
19:08
Lillian Jones Portrait Lillian Jones MP (Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Labour)
-
-
finalising a treaty as soon as possible. With terms agreeing to ensure the long-term secure and effective operation of the existing base of Diego Garcia and Mauritius base of Diego Garcia and Mauritius sovereignty over archipelago. I believe this deal will protect UK believe this deal will protect UK and US national security interests by ensuring long-term effective by ensuring long-term effective operations on the base. Since its creation the British Indian Ocean Territory and the UK-US military Territory and the UK-US military base has had a contested existence.

It was only a matter of time before the UK would have to choose between international law or negotiating from a position of weakness. And risking national security. It was therefore necessary to pursue an agreement to ensure the stability of agreement to ensure the stability of the base. I also believe it is right to give the US administration the right to agree. I agree with the trust fund for the Mauritius community first together Mauritius and UK will start a new program of visits to the Chagos Archipelago for Chagossians for top this is a bilateral agreement between the UK and Mauritius, and we are mindful that the future of the islands is an important issue for the Chagossian community.

The interest has been an important part of the negotiations as the UK has PVC made clear, the Chagos Islands were removed from the Chagos archipelago, and the way they were treated after was wrong. So the government has restated its commitment to supporting Chagossians and the UK with all Chagossians remaining eligible for British citizenship and to make a home in the UK. The FCDO has also declared that officials will continue to engage with Chagossian officials over a range of issues.

It also shuts down any possibility of the Indian Ocean being used as a dangerous migration route the UK, with Mauritius taking responsibility for any future arrivals. I'm reassured that parliament will have the ability to scrutinise the treaty and the Constitutional reform and governance act as standard international agreements. Amazon reassured that this will be a unique agreement and the government has stressed it has no bearing on why the UK government policy regarding other overseas territories. This agreement does not signal any change in policy other than overseas territories and past speculation is factually wrong.

The Chagos Islands are a very different issue with a very different history. We stand 100% the right to self-determination for the people of the Falklands and Gibraltar. The military base on Diego Garcia is vital to our national security, and I welcome the government taking on these negotiations as their best way to secure a future on the base. The government inherited a situation but the long-term future of the military base was under threat, and therefore the governor has secured a deal that protects the base for at least 99 years, a period that can be extended.

There will be clear commitments for robust security arrangements. That almost guarantees to Josie and people gives people, this Lady Curran is doing the right thing. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Can I thank my office for helping me draft what was a long speech, which I will not be mostly
19:12
Gagan Mohindra Portrait Mr Gagan Mohindra MP (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
speech, which I will not be mostly using given the time constraints. Can I try and lower the tone of what is a very passionate debate? I've got immense respect for the Minister and she's had a very difficult outing today, she's held up high. But I know that her former career as a lecturer will hopefully hold this House in good stead, and so can she educate us on some basic questions? Because this is the second time this week we've asked questions about the Chagos Islands and I am still confused.

We on this side entered into negotiation 11 times. I know that the junior PPS is very eager but please do let me say a few more words. My government entered into negotiations 11 times. As anyone with any semblance of business experience will know, you enter negotiation but sometimes you don't always achieve an end result. I know that this Labour government one on 4 July but within three months they decided to do differently to what my government had done 11 times when we closed the negotiations by the end of the long-term in the other place.

Can she explain the rationale what materially changed because we've heard about the judgement, the advisory judgement by the ICJ. I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be. That will help us understand actually what has changed to better educate myself and my constituents and why they are giving sovereign islands away when the world is becoming increasingly more dangerous? There are various media reports that suggest that there will be increased lobbying from immersion government, and those they listen to suggest that they may look to revisit the terms of whatever deal we do to their benefit.

Now the frustration you've heard from our side of the chamber is the lack of detail. Your government came in, campaigned... Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the members interest in the Chagos Islands and desire for detail. It's obviously an issue he is very passionate about, having not mentioned it in the previous setting of this House in his time since of this House in his time since of this House in his time since 2010. But I wonder if with his desire for detail, he could let us desire for detail, he could let us know the name of the four main

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chagos Islands? I've not been to that part of the world, but as the new member will learn, the longer he is in this place, certain positions do not give you the ability to actually speak in the chamber. One of which is a government whip. I was also the former PPS the Foreign Secretary, again you don't speak about your own department. Going back to the axle substance of the debate, I've tried to approach this with a modicum of decency to actually try and get some reasonable answers that all of us want to hear.

I think one of the concerns we have on the side of the House is the bull in a china shop way that this government is choosing to actually force a deal that we will not have sight on to after it signed. There are continuing questions about money. I know the premise to head a redacted statement that was shared with my Frontbench yesterday that was quickly amended. And it allowed our side not to have And it allowed our side not to have Going back to the honourable member, we are in a democracy so the ability to debate and disagree is what makes us stronger.

I hope the Minister or whoever is winding up on behalf of the government will be able to clarify some reasonable questions we have consistently asked and go back saying you have said it to us mean we are -- means giving her full academic background I hope the students said they did not understand she would find a way of helping them understand. Oakley on this at the House we will have a better rationale or understanding of the rationale the government is trying to achieve.

Sorry Madam Deputy Speaker. The frustration with we have heard about information coming from Hansard I think is discourtesy to this House. I know if Mr Speaker was in the chair he would always want this House to be involved in any detail that is in the public domain that is widely investigated and certain details yesterday were public before they were put forward to this House. Can I urge the government, the Frontbench where things are in the public domain they share it with us in a way that we can analyse and scrutinise the role of any parliamentarians as this is critical of legislation and future for our country.

And I think the reason why Mr Speaker and the speakers panel allow debates on this issue is we on this side of the House are unsatisfied but also people in the chair are also unsatisfied. While chair are also unsatisfied. While this may be... Value have continual use of statements, zero benefit of the Foreign Office Minister I would prefer you went out to the world flying the British flag on our behalf. But I will continue to lobby for UQs on this business and this topic because having basic details of what you are trying to achieve, sorry but the government are trying to achieve I think is perfectly reasonable.

Thank you. reasonable. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The opposition have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The opposition have put this topic again -- picked this topic again is symbolic to me for topic again is symbolic to me for they have decided the outright rejection by the election last year was not based on the fact they have not done anything on delivery for
19:18
Louise Sandher-Jones Portrait Louise Jones MP (North East Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
not have the GPs. NHS dentist appointments for adults are almost non-existent and I welcome the recent announcement of a 7,000 extra points and arbiter. -- Extra appointments in Derbyshire. Yes of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm a bit confused once again from the government benches. I thought the debate was about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British Indian Ocean Territory rather than GP surgeries. Do not worry the night is yet

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do not worry the night is yet young and I will get onto that. young and I will get onto that. Perhaps we could have heard what the Conservative solutions to these issues of health might have been. Now they have had the time and proposition the time to reflect what proposition the time to reflect what cause these issues in the first place. Instead we are talking about the Chagos Islands. Perhaps we could have discussed what other measures are desperately needed in constituencies like mine such as better buses, investment in transport infrastructure such as the railway, a step change in educational opportunities for our young people.

Energy security and how we provide affordable houses. Of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. I thank my gallant and honourable friend the giving way. I pay tribute friend the giving way. I pay tribute to her service and also the other member for Leighton's service. I member for Leighton's service. I wonder if you book about the experience and they were kind of supported those in forces once -- supported those in forces once -- what kind of support did those forces want? Did they want more forces want? Did they want more funding or did they want to debate the Chagos Islands?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is right. The people in the Armed Forces would have preferred to Armed Forces would have preferred to have heard about support for their jobs, what we are doing to improve the forces and of course how we are certifiably making the future of a certifiably making the future of a very important base that many of them are relying on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them are relying on. Not only is the honourable lady and honourable comrades, we both and honourable comrades, we both heard the announcement of extra heard the announcement of extra money going to defence and I think we both welcomed the announcement. The thing that troubles are something I am sure she will share concern at if you look at the way the maths seems to be working out, particularly with the comments made by the Prime Minister's spokesman today, it appears actually there was not a rise in defence spending but once this is taken into account a cut in defence spending.

Isn't that a matter of some concern? When you factor in the cost of the Chagos, the single intelligence account and the other elements that have landed onto this increase, it actually looks like a decrease.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for his opinion and I would remind him this is the light -- the highest this is the light -- the highest increase in defence spending in a while. Here I'm sure he is aware of the considerable damage done to the Armed Forces over the last 15 years that myself and others who served saw first-hand. We are talking about saw first-hand. We are talking about the Chagos Islands again. We could the Chagos Islands again.

We could be speaking about antisocial behaviour and other crimes like that in my constituency for top we really struggle with car theft, gang exploited county lines, issues with off-road bikes, mobile phone theft.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course I will. I thank the honourable and gallant friend before giving way for studies she not think her studies she not think her constituents have the right to know how much this is going to cost them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how much this is going to cost them for this deal is negotiated and finished? I thank the honourable member for his intervention and I know it is his intervention and I know it is multiple times in Hansard about the projected costs and I look forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

projected costs and I look forward to hearing the finalisation in due course It is already well-documented in Hansard these negotiations were Hansard these negotiations were started by the Conservative government. And I think we all deserve to know the reason why they decided to start them in the first place. I quote they were necessary to ensure the continued effective operation of the joint humic like the joint UK US military base on Diego Garcia for that they knew the status quo was not tenable and a poor choice.

This deal, let's keep it real and make sure it is on the record. This deal is the only way to ensure legal certainty for a vital base. Like it or not nothing has left us under the threat of legal challenges which jeopardise the challenges which jeopardise the future of the base. That is a fact. In my corner of the military I was aware of the vital importance of the space and I am glad we are securing it now. I can assure you unlike the Leader of the Opposition who a couple of weeks ago refused to sign a classified remit on the base, please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

I know what I am talking about. If the party opposite would like to suggest a better idea that is not just do nothing that I would be interested to hear incredible point of view otherwise forgive me if I will support what actually will work. When I go back to the constituency and I have Michael -- have my surgery is a knock on doors as I will do tomorrow I will be happy to tell my constituents this answer but I know it will not needed.

Because they will not be asking me about the Chagos Islands. Instead my constituents rightly prioritise health, transport, education, immigration and housing. They would rightly wonder why these were also not the priority of a political party interested in their vote. So doing nothing was the hallmark of the previous Conservative government. It looks like irrelevance will be the hallmark of the Conservative opposition going forward.
19:24
Nigel Farage Portrait Nigel Farage MP (Clacton, Reform UK)
-
-
Thank you. I have to say as elected representative of a very young political party I watched this game going on between the two old parties and find it difficult to include it as anything other than a complete and utter Sharad. Whilst I agree with the right honourable member for Witham who made the argument, this is British sovereign territory, there is nothing to be gained, literally nothing to be gained by giving it away, I see the benches behind her during that this was the party that went through as we went earlier -- as we heard earlier, 11 rounds of negotiations.

The Conservative government was happy to surrender the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands that did not like the final shape of the deals then we go onto the current government. Who tell us this has to be done of legal certainty like legal uncertainty. There is no legal uncertainty whatsoever. You can shake your head if you want but you know I am right. The ICJ has no jurisdiction over this whatsoever. So why are we doing it? I guess of course postcolonial guilt.

The government run by human rights lawyers. Beyond that I really do not understand it. You know something, I made a comment earlier about the cost, I promise you 90 million a year to 99 years -- for 99 years with three pounds at three% compounded inflation is £52 billion. That of course is madness. And members of this House have been saying why are we not debating health? What other issues? Well 50 million quid is a very good reason to debate this.

I have tried in this House and elsewhere to make these arguments. I have explained China already has a smart city right next to Port Louis. I have explained who our way of the commune occasion system. You can see now of course Minister Modi is worried missing out on the action. There is a 200 mile Marine Park which potentially has cobalt and other mineral resources that could be words -- that could be worth tens if not hundreds of billions of pounds.

Prepared to give it all way. The timing of this is perfect because the Prime Minister is mid-Atlantic as we speak. I have spoken in the course of the last week two American Cabinet Ministers. Whilst they are considered by Chagos they are even more concerned about bringing an end to the war in Ukraine which I think we are very keen to see provided it is on the right terms. There was a was going to be a big debate about tariffs. Here is the point Chagos is not especially high on the American agenda at the moment.

I would love to see the American administration veto this terrible deal. But I'm not even sure then this government will move its position was they are clearly hellbent --. They are clearly hellbent on giving away the Chagos Islands whatever the risk to global security, whatever the risks to our own budgetary constraints. And having ignored completely the will of the majority of the Chagossian people. If that is the case I would rather see America have the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands than a corrupt Mauritius.

If we are going to give this up, let's sell, let's get a few million quid for the British Chagos Islands. Mauritius has no legal basis, no legal claim. The investment would come, the Chagossian could go back and get well paid jobs. I want us to keep sovereignty but if you are prepared to give away this country's interests, sell it to America do not give it away to corrupt Mauritius. give it away to corrupt Mauritius.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. We have all seen what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. We have all seen what a disregard for international law looks like when it plays out on the world stage. That is why it is right world stage. That is why it is right and necessary to take a deliberate considered approach when taking considered approach when taking decisions that affect our national security and our global standing. Decisions must protect us here at Decisions must protect us here at home and our -- are in step with our allies. With an agreement on the future of the Day of silence on the future of the Chagos Islands we have upheld other commitments and protected our interest in the Indian Ocean.

As someone who has sat around double matted tables over the years I would caution anyone against reading meaning into a look or indeed a smile. It is the words on the page at the end of the day that matter. National defence always comes first. It is important to recognise the strategic role of ensuring a stable environment. After
19:29
Anna Gelderd Portrait Anna Gelderd MP (South East Cornwall, Labour)
-
-
the Minister has highlighted the Chagos marine protected area first established in 2010. Demonstrates UK established in 2010. Demonstrates UK leadership. It is a shining example of marine protection. Covering over of marine protection. Covering over 600 Covering over 640,000 square kilometres. More than eight times the size of the UK and is crucial. As a fully protected marine protected area this site is of protected area this site is of global significance. Providing important refuge for many. It plays a crucial role in building a crucial role in building resilience.

And yet the Conservatives started these negotiations. 11 rounds of talks We have agreed an agreement that safeguards the long-term future of the base, strengthens our relationship with Mauritius and protects our strategic interest in the region. This government has delivered where the last failed. An outcome the opposition must start to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get used to. May I just start paying tribute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just start paying tribute to Henry Smith, a former member of this House who did an enormous amount of work over many years, representing the Chagossian voice in representing the Chagossian voice in our country, and making sure that their voices were heard in these important debates. Now I agree with important debates. Now I agree with Henry that we did as a country a huge wrong to those people in not huge wrong to those people in not allowing them to return to their country, and sadly what this deal does is embed that wrong in does is embed that wrong in perpetuity.

It's wrong that should have been righted on many occasions, a wrong that should never have been done in the first place. But to embed it now in this treaty is
19:31
Tom Tugendhat Portrait Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)
-
-
genuinely shameful. Because this country deserves better than that, country deserves better than that, and those people deserve better than that. We've heard the debate about security and it's a bizarre argument that to swap a freehold for a leasehold is to somehow guarantee leasehold is to somehow guarantee security in the long-term. If any of them would like to sell me the them would like to sell me the houses and then rent that house of me, I'd be delighted to enter into those negotiations.

Clearly that seems to be the way they believe property ownership works. I will property ownership works. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Am reminded of the Addington homes deal under previous homes deal under previous Conservative deal, but that wasn't the purpose of my intervention. If the purpose of my intervention. If he believes there was no reason to have started negotiations, witty say the previous Conservative government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made a mistake in beginning then. The inability has been aware that I was entirely critical at the beginning of those negotiations when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beginning of those negotiations when I was in the government will now give way to the honourable member. Grateful to the former security minister for giving way. And I put minister for giving way. And I put this question to him, how can the base which serves indispensable intelligence asset more secure in the sovereignty of another nation rather than our own, not by words but the words of another former

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security minister, Lord West. Mona before and knows well that the Noble Lord the former Labour the Noble Lord the former Labour security minister and of course former first Sea Lord knows well that these bases occupy a really that these bases occupy a really that these bases occupy a really crucial part, not just in airbases as strategic region into the Middle East, into Southeast Asia, but actually in the intelligence actually in the intelligence collection business that sadly we need to be engaged in to keep our need to be engaged in to keep our people safe.

And the idea that we should be doing this, the idea that we should be handing over these bases in order to somehow satisfy an advisory ruling is I'm afraid wrong. Now the interest of space and time,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will merely give way one last time. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. As he touches upon the ICJ, does my right-wing friend agree with me that not only is the ICJ decision non-binding, there is also a perversity in that two of the a perversity in that two of the judges who sit on this, one who was a key acolyte of Putin and sway hacking, a Chinese official who voted against condemning Russia's voted against condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine do not represent anything other than the interests of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our adversaries. I think the point my honourable friend is currently making is that the same political judgement, and its rational and reasonable political judgement from Moscow and Beijing to make. The problem is it's Beijing to make. The problem is it's being made in Westminster. Now this is an error. Sadly an error we will pay for four generations. It's an error that will haunt us and nearer sadly that will cost us. -- Error. And on that basis, I owed to the government to do what they know is government to do what they know is right and not to continue with the argument my honourable friend has made in pointing out that we should never have started these talks.

If that is true, why are they finishing them? Drop this, drop these talks,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and end this argument. I call the frontbenchers because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the frontbenchers because time is short, the shadow Defence Secretary of state. Thank you. Grateful to all the colleagues who participated in colleagues who participated in today's debate. In a week where the biggest domestic issue has been biggest domestic issue has been defence spending, there was one thing we needed from the government today, transparency. Every penny involved in this terrible Chagos
19:35
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
involved in this terrible Chagos deal will be public money. From the pockets of hard-pressed taxpayers. The government must be straight with the British people about how much money is being spent and on what. The fact is after the opposition has raised the cost of Chagos and other related issues in six separate defence and FCDO Oral Questions, two urgent questions plus multiple written questions, point of order and Prime Minister's questions, we are still none the wiser on how much labour is terrible Chagos deal is going to cost and what its impact will be on the defence budget.

And the Prime Minister has led from the front when it comes to a complete failure to be open with taxpayers on where their hard earned money is going to go. Yesterday before the Prime Minister made his statement on defence spending, the Leader of the Opposition was as is the convention, given a copy of his speech in advance, except as Mr Speaker made very clear, definitely not the convention, all of the key financial information was completely redacted. We have no chance as an opposition to do the sums before the statement which would have shown this claim of a £13.4 billion increase to defence spending was in the words of Paul Johnson of the IFS, playing silly games with numbers.

And the Prime Minister continue to make that claim today about defence spending, despite the secretary of state for defence saying the figures this morning is actually £6 billion. But even if the Prime Minister and the secretary of state for defence are at odds on overall defence spending, where they are united with the rest of their government is a total silence in one respect, the cost of their Chagos deal. The Prime Minister was asked by the Leader of the Opposition and my honourable friend the Bexhill and Battle in three straight yes/no questions today as to whether the cost of their Chagos deal would come from the fence budget.

Three times he refused to give a straight answer. Work on the cover and answer the question? Is it because reports from the press are right the total cost is between 9 billion and £18 billion, not including indexation. Potentially three years worth of the entire additional defence increase, that is using the figure used by the sector of defence for the Prime Minister. Or is it much more simple, the government knows that if the truth of the actual spending figure came out, the public would be aghast.

Just going to make this point, the public understand one basic truth, to leaseback a military

**** Possible New Speaker ****

base we currently own the freehold, the many billions of pounds makes no sense at all. Very grateful to the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving way. Does he not accept that the government has already said it will bring the full already said it will bring the full details of the deal to this House for discussion and consideration. for discussion and consideration. And that will include the cost. And And that will include the cost. And they also not accept that it is with President Trump's team and it's right that our US allies consider the details of the deal before they come to the same conclusion as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

previous administration. Have said the honourable gentleman, he's doing well and getting a PPS ship. But this is Parliament. Parliament's role ever since it started is to a true... Approve money for the executive, that's our constitutional role, and we cannot do that unless they tell us the truth about how much money

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they are going to spend. I give way. The shadow Defence Secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The shadow Defence Secretary should be aware that it was the Prime Minister who came forward and said how he was going to spend that funding. This side of the House therefore need to know if the therefore need to know if the defence increase by his announcement includes the Chagos deals, that's includes the Chagos deals, that's their decision on that side, so they their decision on that side, so they have to put into this House first because it doesn't make any difference whether it comes to Parliament already.

It's the defence budget we are talking about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

budget we are talking about. Grateful. And he's absolutely right, why can't they tell us whether this will come from the defence spending uplift? It's public money, not their money, comes from taxpayers who were already overtaxed enough. They could at least tell them where the money is going to come from. But this deal may make sense through the eyes of internationally focused lawyers and officials responding with utmost caution to the advice they are given. But on this side of the House, we believe fundamentally sovereignty is not something lightly surrendered, including to the USA as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I may say. I give way. What we do know about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What we do know about the financial deal is that it's inflation linked. And inconceivable therefore that ministers won't have had that model. They will have a view about the likely increase in inflation, and the total sum involved, and it will be involved, and it will be astronomical, which is why they are trying to disguise it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trying to disguise it. He is spot on for that they know how much it's going to cost, they just not been transparent with public money. Turning to speeches from honourable friends, my honourable friend and the Frontbench made an excellent point of order earlier when he raised the point that the Minister had said, and it's their crucial argument that they are depending on, that the ITU could somehow threaten our spectrum at Diego Garcia. And yet, as my honourable friend pointing out in a written answer from the telecoms minister dated the 12 February, he was very clear the ITU cannot challenge the U.K.'s use of civilian or military spectrum.

Bang to rights. But the most extraordinary point we have heard today from a galaxy of Backbench speakers opposite, though. And said that somehow the opposition shouldn't be calling this debate. The honourable lady for Kilmarnock and Luton, the honourable gentleman for Leyton & Wanstead, and the honourable lady for North East Derbyshire also this and how we should debate on important issues like the buses and so on. And yet the argument from ministers is that this is critical to national security.

Look at the case commercially we should be debating it in Parliament. And we are going to keep on debating it. Until we finally get some answers. Now my honourable friend the Tunbridge made an excellent point because I along with the shadow Foreign Secretary recently had a wonderful and very moving meeting with many Chagossians in one of the committee rooms, and they were clear to us they've had no meaningful consultation with the government and no face-to-face meetings. Absolutely shameful.

To conclude, and I quote, surrendering sovereignty. I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. Just want to make the point earlier on that the government's position throughout all of this has moved. First of all we were told by them this was an absolute legal requirement under international law. requirement under international law. Then when it was demonstrated that actually there was the get out for the Commonwealth issues, they then moved to legal uncertainties. But there can be no legal uncertainties unless they waved their right to unless they waved their right to have the Commonwealth overrule the judgement, and becomes an advisory judgement, and becomes an advisory position.

Doesn't that make one understand that they simply don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seem to know what they are doing? My right honourable friend pussy brilliant. He put the question about brilliant. He put the question about the waiver, and it was ignored. Like all the other questions, point-blank questions repeatedly, Oral Question debates, they never answer any of the questions. So Lemme conclude, surrendering sovereignty under the surrendering sovereignty under the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act which would put irresponsible act which would put our strategic interests and the interests of our closest allies in danger.

Not my words, those of the former Labour security minister Lord former Labour security minister Lord West. Or as a Donald or Bruce Lee put it so rightly on Monday, the Prime Minister should shelve his Chagos Islands deal. It is peripheral to the U.K.'s current security challenges, and the money could be better spent on defence. We agree 100% on the side of the House. We believe this deal is bad for our security and those of our closest allies United States. And undermines the military base that is strategically crucial, particularly in the growing threat from China, but above all this deal involves the acceptable notion of paying millions to leaseback land we already own.

So it's time ministers told us the truth about how much this deal will cost and where the money will come from. They can't keep predicting when it comes to the cost of Chagos. This is public money, and the public have a right to know the truth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. We've had some pretty interesting contributions during this debate. contributions during this debate. We've had some wild maths, which Carol Vorderman would have had a
19:44
Catherine West Portrait Catherine West MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Hornsey and Friern Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Carol Vorderman would have had a word or two to speak about the maths. We've had some insulting comments from the Member for Tonbridge. He was downright playing the man or the woman and not the ball. Earlier on in the debate. But however, I will try to respond to some of the points raised. Certainly those which my colleague the Minister for International development didn't answer, and I think she did a pretty good job in opening this debate. And as the Member, the gallant member for Leyton & Wanstead said, the Chagos Islands deal is paramount for our national security.

The deal secures the joint UK US space on Diego Garcia, and without it, the operation of the base is at risk. The deal once finalised will ensure the debate can operate... The base can operate as it has done well into the next century. As members know, Diego Garcia is a joint UK US space, and it's only right that the new US administration has the opportunity to review the agreement. As has been made the points being made on a number of occasions tonight.

And we will continue to hold constructive discussions with the US on the deal. As the Member for the North East Derbyshire said, the gallant honourable and gallant friend, we will only agree a deal that is in the U.K.'s best interest and protects our national security, and she of course has lengthy experience in security and defence matters. Many colleagues have asked about the cost of the deal and whether payments have increased. And the claims being circulated in the media are categorically untrue.

The overall cost of this deal has not changed under the former Mauritian The original political agreement signed in October was clear the annual payment would be next. This position has not changed. This was a policy of the previous government as the member for Braintree who is no longer in his place has said. This was a policy of the previous government and has long been agreed in writing with the previous Mauritian government. Once the treaty is signed it will be lane in both houses of scrutiny in the usual way.

-- Laid in both houses for scrutiny in the usual way. This deal has not been brushed, in fact it was this like the subject of several debates will stop the UK has inherited a situation where the long-term future of the base was under threat. The previous government obviously agreed with this government and rightly so. There was a need to act. Otherwise two years of negotiations would not have carried on. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers, foreign defence secretaries recognise this and gave the instructions to begin negotiations in 2022.

Holding 11 rounds before July before July 2020 like before July 2024. The government is so confident this deal offers value for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taxpayers money, tell us how much you are going to pay for? I think what this debate has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think what this debate has shown some members are finding it difficult to come to deal with the fact treaty is between two sovereign fact treaty is between two sovereign governments. When a government is operating it has the right to make negotiations in its own way. negotiations in its own way. Particularly with the sort of majority that was achieved last majority that was achieved last July. Of course we have to have Parliamentary's -- Parliamentary debates and questions have to be asked.

As the shadow Minister...
19:48
19:48
Catherine West Portrait Catherine West MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Hornsey and Friern Barnet, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the member knows that is not a matter for the chair. I will let the Minister continue. That is the second point of order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the second point of order that was not really a point of order. But it is quite fun to be in opposition. I think what we have opposition. I think what we have seen in the last 24 hours is genuine leadership on defence matters. As leadership on defence matters. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposed to some very high jinx. Will the Minister agree with me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the Minister agree with me what is important is ensuring the security and the future of this security and the future of this space until the opposition put forward a credible alternative to support the government who are fixing the issue?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fixing the issue? I rest my case. Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker,... I thank the Minister for giving way. Before she concludes her contribution could she just put on record this is really about the most grotesque injustice that was done to people under colonial subjection by this country in the 1980s? And since then they have fought for their right to return to the islands and that should be central to our thoughts on this, to write the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

historic wrong that was done to the Chagossian people. The honourable member of course

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member of course has a long history in being active in the APPG with the member for in the APPG with the member for Romford. Who is not in his place today. But he is in the shadow foreign team. I think that goes to foreign team. I think that goes to show across this House including the former member for Crawley there has been a desire for a very long time been a desire for a very long time to bring the true situation of the Chagossian's to light.

I pay tribute Chagossian's to light. I pay tribute to all members across this House who have fought for a very long time for the Chagossian is to be treated properly. As the member for Kilmarnock & Loudoun said earlier in the debate, in a very sensible contribution as opposed to some of the other contributions this afternoon. That really we regret the way the Chagossians were removed from the island and the way they were treated thereafter and there negotiations were between two states.

The system priority and that of the previous government has been to protect the base and we have not necessarily always focused on the needs of those people. So I thank those members this afternoon who have brought forward the interests of the Chagossians including some of the members from the LibDem benches as well. The government will finance a new trust fund for the support of the Chagossian community. We will also take forward visits to the area and for the first time Mauritius will be free to implement a program of resettlement to the islands other than Diego Garcia.

I know that that will also be a positive development for the member for Manchester where there is also a significant and active group of Chagossians who are very active in the faith community. I take an intervention from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I have a lot of respect from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a lot of respect from the honourable lady. That is why I'm going to ask this. Is there any other Court than I am J -- IMG that other Court than I am J -- IMG that could come to judgement of the sovereignty of the islands?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sovereignty of the islands? As the member is aware with his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the member is aware with his long-term intelligence background, long-term intelligence background, really the lack of legal certainty is why we have acted. Because the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should, that is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries if we fail to secure legal certainty for the base. Moving now to continue the point on the Chagossians, there are many different views within the Chagossian community. One example, the Chagos refugee group often represented by Olivier Banco, one of the largest Chagossian groups has actually welcomed the agreement.

I now move to the environment question and the MP for South East Cornwall mentioned the unique environment around the Chagos Islands were of course the most important marine environments do need to be protected. Was security paramount we have also secured a deal that will help predict -- protect the unique environment of the Chagos a cappella. There will be Enhanced Partnership between the UK and Mauritius under which the UK will support Mauritius ambition, the Mauritius ambition is to establish a marine protected area.

The protect the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos Islands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend the Minister for giving way. Would she agree with me that it is somewhat agree with me that it is somewhat unfortunate that after some consensus yesterday at PMQs in consensus yesterday at PMQs in matters of national security we are now seeing sadly the opposition benches reverting to type which is flirting with populism on important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issues? I thank my honourable friend for this intervention. To perhaps conclude our debate looking at Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to be the question be now put forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the question being output. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is as on the order The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the
19:54
20:08
20:09
20:10
20:10
Ian Sollom Portrait Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
meaningful transformation that families do desperately need. Now families do desperately need. Now before my election last July, I confessed the Child Maintenance Service hadn't been on my radar as Service hadn't been on my radar as such an important issue. That such an important issue. That changed almost immediately upon taking office as constituents came to me with their accounts of experiences with the CMS and their experiences with the CMS and their appeals for help. And these were not isolated incidents or minor isolated incidents or minor inconveniences.

They revealed systemic failures, enforcement mechanisms that seemed to exist in name only, loopholes exploited by those seeking to evade their responsibilities, and adequate protections for survivors of domestic abuse, and an impersonal bureaucracy that overwhelms those it should be there to help. Failures to correct even basic errors grind down those unfortunate enough to be let down by those errors. I want to share one constituents story that exemplifies these failings. For nearly 2 decades, dating back to the days of the old Child support agency, she has fought for what her child should have been entitled to.

And in all that time, her ex-partner has made consistent payments for just six months. After courageously leaving an abusive relationship, she had turned to the CMS for support. Instead, she encountered a system powerless to act when her ex-partner began gaming the system. He claimed to be unemployed while there was evidence that he was working. Mr payments would coincide with birthdays and Christmas, depriving her of the means to make these occasions special for her child. He refused to engage unless she contacted him directly, knowing full well how traumatic this would be, given the history of abuse.

Her mental health understandably deteriorated. Yet in all her desperate calls to the CMS, rarely did she speak to the same person twice. Someone familiar with her case, someone invested in its resolution. In her words support consisted of someone, and I quote here, " He read from the screen, then said they would transfer me to someone who can help, but really just put me back in the queue." So she spent years feeling she is going round in circles without receiving all the payments she should have received for the care of their child.

I hope the Minister would agree that this falls well short of what vulnerable families deserve. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I do appreciate it. Does the honourable member agree that we need more enforcement, more accurate assessment of non-resident accurate assessment of non-resident parent income and better joint working between HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Work and Pensions, and if we saw that, it would help the constituents he has referred to, but also parents like my constituent whose ex-partner is avoiding paying whose ex-partner is avoiding paying any ongoing child maintenance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

despite owning multiple properties. I think the honourable member for her interventions, and I absolutely would agree that that's exactly the sort of reform we need to see in the system, and something I will come unto.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I commend the honourable gentleman for bringing this forward. I spoke to him beforehand. I'd love to say that things were better in Northern Ireland, but they are not a Northern Ireland, but they are not a bit better. If you look at me, you see I have no hair. One of the reasons I have no hair is because reasons I have no hair is because this is incredibly stressful. The very things the honourable gentleman has referred to are things that I deal with and my staff deal with regularly.

In Northern Ireland, the regularly. In Northern Ireland, the stats show that Northern Ireland in March last year showed only 54% of March last year showed only 54% of parents were paying over 90% of what they owe. It means those who should be paying out pain, so it's clear to me that the system.. Family struggling. Does the member agree we need a UK wide overhaul, not just in Northern Ireland but everywhere in Northern Ireland but everywhere in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member for his intervention. I come to the intervention. I come to the statistics further in my speech but absolutely. The statistics speak to absolutely. The statistics speak to the need for reform. The constituent the need for reform. The constituent I mentioned is far from alone. It isn't all one way. Paying parents isn't all one way. Paying parents often find this is the case. Another constituent of mine has spent months constituent of mine has spent months battling the service after experiencing a genuine drop in income.

Despite providing every piece of documentation he has been asked for he has been left waiting and waiting for a respond like a response to his payment schedule. I quote him here where he said I received a letter saying my request was not valid but I was given no explanation. The letter said I would be referred to a team. Almost 2 months later I have received no contact. It is just another story embodying those failures. Failures with the CMS.

I attended the Parliamentary event hosted by Gingerbread, the charity physical parent families. The APPG physical parent families. A testimony shared that day echoed many of these fundamental problems, enforcement failures, dehumanising customer service and the resulting financial hardship and in too many cases continued use. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member for securing this debate it is very important debate. And the office of the APPG debate. And the office of the APPG on the single-parent families. A recent excellent report from recent excellent report from Gingerbread on fixing the CMS noted where child maintenance is paid where child maintenance is paid there is a 25% lower child in those there is a 25% lower child in those families. With the member agree with me this work gingerbread does absolutely is vital but also it is really vital in an important step to really vital in an important step to solving child that we need to fix with the Child Maintenance Service.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member for his intervention and absolutely. It is an excellent report by Gingerbread an excellent report by Gingerbread to fixing the CMS. And it has a lot of pointers and a lot of excellent statistics about single-parent families. I come onto some of those families. I come onto some of those now. The government owned child maintenance statistics paint quite a maintenance statistics paint quite a damning picture. 31% of all paid parents -- paying parents paid no maintenance payments whatsoever.

A maintenance payments whatsoever. A further 12% paid less than 60% of what they owed. Those are not just statistics, they represent thousands and thousands of children going without. I do want to ask the Minister directly, how does the government intend to strengthen the CMS enforcement powers to prevent systemic abuse? And following the recent consultation on improving payment collection and transfer, when can we expect to see the government response? Over one million children nationwide depend on CMS arrangements.

Many of these children and their single-parent families lack the financial security they deserve and need. That brings me to the wider issue of child. -- Child poverty. An area this government has claimed to prioritise. It is hard not to question the depth of that commitment when so far the government has refused to abolish the two-child benefit cap. And when reform of the CMS seems to have barely featured in policy discussions. The evidence is stark, according to Save the Children almost half of all children in single-parent families live in poverty.

Compared to one in four children in two-parent household. Gingerbread's fix to CMS report shows over 50% of parents not receiving their entitled maintenance struggle to pay essential bills. And nearly half cannot afford basic necessities like loads, shoes -- clothes, shoes or school uniforms for their children. It should be self-evident any serious strategy to tackle child poverty must include fundamental reform of the child maintenance service. And so I ask the Minister what progress has been made on the government Child Poverty Strategy? And has it given appropriate consideration to the reform of the CMS? The challenges that the CMS are numerous and complex and they beg further questions.

Would the government consider reviewing the CMS funding formula to ensure it truly reflects the cost of rising -- raising a child? Can the government commit to amending service charges including a four% fee for receiving parents using Collect and Pay and the initial £20 enrolment charge? How can the government improve staff recruitment, retention and training to ensure the workforce can properly support those who depend on this vital service? Those are just some of the questions the government must consider.

If it does want to reform the CMS. I know the answers will not be easy and I do want to thank the Minister for his response in advance. And also thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate. Finally to acknowledge the contributions and presence of all members who have stayed here today for this adjournment bait. They do understand the gravity of the issue. And I hope the Minister is about to show us the government do as well. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. May I begin by congratulating the right honourable congratulating the right honourable gentleman on securing what is incredibly important to him, incredibly important to him, important his constituents and as I hope I will ensure him a hope I will ensure him a contribution that is important to the government too. Because party many children are growing up in poverty. And a key priority for this
20:22
Andrew Western Portrait Andrew Western MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
-
-
poverty. And a key priority for this Labour government is to reduce that number. As soon as possible. That is why child maintenance is incredibly important. It is estimated the child maintenance payments keep around 160,000 children out of poverty each year. That has involved the CMS arranging around one point billion pounds -- £1.4 billion of child maintenance payments from September from September 2024 onwards. Tackling child poverty is an urgent priority for the government and that is why we have already announced our commitment to triple investment to breakfast clubs to over £30 million, roll out free breakfast cups at all primary schools.

Creating 3,000 additional nurseries and increasing the national living wage to £12.21 an hour from April of this year to boost the pay of 3 million workers, many of them parents. The ministerial Child Poverty Taskforce which are referred is working to publish a Child Poverty Strategy later this year. Which will deliver lasting change. In developing the strategy the task force exploring all available levers for reducing child across four key beams including incomes, reducing essential costs, reducing financial resilience make increasing financial resilience and better local support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

especially in the early years. He mentioned the task force would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He mentioned the task force would look at all options and I wonder if he could come and whether that would include removing and scrapping the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to char Benefit Cap? Shou Zi Chew As I said and the honourable gentleman will heard me do so we are looking at all available levers and looking at all available levers and across those four areas so we will across those four areas so we will not -- nothing and nothing out but I understand the point he is making. understand the point he is making. In returning to the CMS specifically I want to acknowledge we are aware of the challenges the service faces.

We recognise there is scope for improvement and the ministerial team as a whole are committed to making those improvements. Moving on to what we are doing about those issues, I would like to turn to the recent direct pay consultation again referred to this and provides a background to the proposed reforms. My policy have long -- my party have long called for reforms to the Direct Pay service stating it does not work for all parents. For this reason this government extended the Direct Pay consultation launched by the last government with the express pertinence of gathering as much feedback from stakeholders as was possible.

We are looking closely at the feedback received and we will publish the government response in due course. I do appreciate the honourable gentleman would ask for a more specific timeline but I hope he would appreciate in what is an incredibly delicate area dealing with vulnerable children, venerable families and strange relationships, we want to take our time and make sure we get those changes right. The consultation itself I thank my honourable friend for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He will know getting it right for the most vulnerable children is important and we are increasingly important and we are increasingly seeing post separation and financial abuse coming to light in a lot of these cases. And indeed the report these cases. And indeed the report from Ginger bread I cited earlier says that 45% of the people who report those separation financial abuses say it gets worse when the abuses say it gets worse when the CMS is involved. I hope that any report into the role of the CMS in tackling and supporting vulnerable families will look at this question and will help us get some answers on that issue.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. He has a long history not just of working on the history not just of working on the CMS issues but on child poverty more broadly and his expertise I know are broadly and his expertise I know are of great value to this House I want to assure him and I will say a little more around domestic abuse little more around domestic abuse and financial abuse later on in my contribution, the focus we have in the consultation on the proposed abolition of Direct Pay is intended as a specific response to that issue.

I have seen some appalling examples in the cases that have crossed my desk as a Minister of people who are able to message their former partner in the form of a comment on a bank transaction. So they will transfer 1p because they have a direct payment in place along with a, an abusive term or some form of triggering harassment of a former victim of theirs, showing actually whilst the parent may have moved away from that unsafe and dangerous environment, they are never fully aware were Direct Pay's engaged.

I can see the honourable gentleman trying to come in. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for this and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for this and I expect the Minister will have a positive response to all of our queries because that is the Minister queries because that is the Minister we have in front of us. I know that. One of the things that really frustrates me and frustrates us all, you see when my constituents come to me and they say I get a different person every time I phone up. I have to tell the same story over and over again. And then you go back two weeks later and the person you are weeks later and the person you are speaking to two weeks before, they are away as well.

There must be some way within the DWP that we can have a specific case of -- case Officer who looks after them. And that Officer needs to respond to the person. I know these are things the Minister understands but also it is so simple, it seems to me to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simple. We need some help for our constituents. I absolutely understand the point the honourable gentleman is making. With specific reference to named With specific reference to named caseworkers initially for victims of domestic abuse will have something domestic abuse will have something further to say in my contribution that he I think will welcome. I am that he I think will welcome. I am sure all speakers should do so. But I take the point he more generally is making also. If I may make some is making also.

If I may make some progress, just to say the proposals also sought turning to the issue of Direct Pay and domestic violence, financial abuse et cetera, the proposals also saw these on collection of these and export of victims and survivors of domestic abuse can be better supported. Which is so important given the sort of issues raised by the honourable gentleman in opening the debate. When he cited the case of his own constituents. Overall work is ongoing to establish the steps needed to really improve the service taking account of abusive parents.

These will be set out in that response to the consultation. I appreciate he would like that to be as soon as possible and I will take that away. Just drill down on that issue of domestic abuse, the scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable and this government will treat it as the national emergency it is. Our manifesto included the missions to halve violence against women and girls in a decade and we were right to do so and I know all Ministers are focused on making that a reality.

If I may just say therefore a little about the support that should be available and if he wants to share specific details of the case that he referenced with me I will take it away. Because the support that should be available is extensive and runs contrary to what has clearly happened in the case that he outlined. We have overseen progress in providing support. The continued rollout out of an operational team to deliver targeted support to parents facing the most challenging and complex abuse.

The team provide a tailored and discreet service to customers which is incredibly important given regularly -- regular progress updates and can and do assign a named caseworker prevent customers having to retail the story at each interaction. As the honourable gentleman was saying. That can be incredibly stressful for That can be incredibly stressful for The caseworkers are trained to identify and refer appropriate cases to that team, and more generally the Child Maintenance Service consulted on a diverse range of stakeholders to review its domestic abuse training for all frontline CMS staff to ensure caseworkers understand, recognise and respond appropriately to customers who are experiencing domestic abuse or who are survivors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of domestic abuse. Very grateful to the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to the Minister for giving way and I congratulate the honourable gentleman for securing honourable gentleman for securing this debate. I've had a number of examples of people coming to me with stories being ignored, let down by the agency. As soon as the focus of this agency are dealt with, the this agency are dealt with, the better the people up and down our United Kingdom. With that in mind, but the Minister find time to meet with me to talk about the specific examples of my constituents, and he's touched on the point of this is an equality and safety issue.

That's very much the situation in my patch, the people who came to my surgery, so I'd be grateful in the spirit with which he's approached this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate so far if you get time -- find time to me to discuss these points. I should have known he would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should have known he would be in his place. He is keen on adjournment debates. We all know that. This is where I helped myself that. This is where I helped myself as an impostor because I am not the Minister with direct responsibility for the Child Maintenance Service, but I'm very happy to put him in touch with the Department Minister for the Lords who I'm sure would be for the Lords who I'm sure would be happy to have a conversation with happy to have a conversation with him.

Turning back to the honourable gentleman and the points he made about calculation reforms, a broad review of the child maintenance calculation is being conducted, which is examining the scope of change and improvements while maintaining the simplicity of the calculation. It can be very frustrating I know the pain parents who are waiting to have income reassessed, and indeed receiving parents when they are aware that it pain parent has received a substantial income increase. The calculation at present generally looks at income from the previous tax year, and it's only at present when somebody's income has changed with the divergence of more than 25% in either direction that it would trigger an in year evaluation.

So we are looking at ways that we can change that whilst recognising that we need to encourage payment compliance and more sustainable arrangements in all that we do. He will be pleased to hear that the £20 application fee referred to was removed in 2024. Getting rid of a financial barrier to parents wishing to access the CMS. Proposals to include more types of taxable income held by HMRC within the standard maintenance calculation are being considered alongside the review of the child maintenance calculation.

Turning to enforcement, and my honourable friend the Compton raised this also, I can understand that for some receiving parents there are frustrations with how quickly the CMS secures payment from non- compliant paying parents. We have seen significant improvements to speed up action when payments first breakdown, and to target enforcement action more effectively. We are changing the process at present to make direct deductions something we could do more swiftly where issues emerge. We do have a strong, range of strong enforcement powers that can be used against those who consistently refuse to meet their obligations to provide financial support to the children, and in the past year to September 2024, the CMS has collected £16.8 million from paying parents with civil enforcement actions in process.

Collection three civil enforcement have followed general upwards trajectory in recent years. For comparison the equivalent figure in comparison the equivalent figure in 2021 was 10.3 was 10.3 million. Finally, I'd like to finish by talking about the improvements to customer experience and digital services that the Department have been introducing. Since 2020 as part of the DWP service modernisation program. The department has transformed the ways in which customers can interact with the CMS, providing customers with the choice to make contact with digital routes and reducing the time taken to action change of circumstances.

We continue to develop our digital offer, evaluating through user research and customer feedback, but we are committed to retaining a nondigital telephony service to ensure no customer is excluded. I recognise as I said earlier that the honourable gentleman is rightly impatient as are other members to see change, and the detail of our reform package following the conclusion of the reason consultation, but getting that right solution will take a little time. It's about the changes we make are probably considered and robust so that the CMS cannot just continue to play an important role but to play an ever more effective and increasingly important role in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting children and tackling child poverty. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it,
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page