Commons Chamber

Monday 3rd March 2025

(began 11 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
confident that the fire safety performance regulations in place are clear, robust, and effective?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They will be all of those things that I believe is a shared goal. For clarity, we are absolutely taking clarity, we are absolutely taking the recommendations forward as we stated last week. We don't think stated last week. We don't think that the testing houses themselves ought to be under a single construction regulator because that construction regulator because that would mean that regulator will be marking their own homework if there was a problem. I know colleagues was a problem. I know colleagues opposite if they have a problem, I'm more than happy to speak on this.

On European standards we have looked in European standards we have looked in detail. I have to say that I think alignment with them is a desirable goal but that is subject to the consultation that is underway. We are very clear, at the moment it does not cover enough construction projects, there's not enough transparency, not enough accountability when things go wrong. So our desire, as has been expressed, is a high standards regime and I look forward to working with colleagues opposite in the with colleagues opposite in the service of the goal which I know is a shared one.

 Question 13 please. is one of those common things across colleagues and I think Constituents raised with us. It is why we were delighted at the budget the Chancellor confirms that the long- term planning program to be retained and reformed. Working with 75 towns across the UK providing each with money to support regeneration. It comes on top of the novation High Street Rental Auctions and the forthcoming right to buy. forthcoming right to buy.
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Mr Speaker. Less than one week since I called on this house to show the courage of our predecessors, we see clearly before us the test of our times. A crossroads in our history. With permission I will update the house on my efforts to secure a strong, just, and lasting peace following Russia's vile invasion of Ukraine. It begins in this house where, on Tuesday, announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. A recognition of the fact that, once again, we live in an era where peace in Europe depends upon strength and deterrence.

But also, a rediscovery of the old post-war argument long held on these benches that economic security is national security. Because the demands we now have to make of Britain must come alongside a new foundation of security for working people. The tough choices that we made last week, they are not done. We must use the process of getting to 3% of our national income spent on defence to fundamentally rebuild British industry. Use our investment in military spending to create new jobs and apprenticeships in every part of the country.

And that is why last night I announced a deal that perfectly symbolises the new era. A partnership with Ukraine that allows them to use £1.6 billion of UK Export Finance to buy 5000 air defence missiles, manufactured in Belfast. That means UK jobs, UK skills, UK Finance pulling together for our national interest. Putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position for peace, and protecting innocent civilians from the terror of Russian drones. My efforts continued on Thursday when I met President Trump in the White House.

To strengthen our relationship with America. What happened in his subsequent meeting with President Zelensky is something nobody in this house wants to see. But I do want to be crystal clear, we must strengthen our relationships with America. Four hour security, for our technology, outrage, and investment. They are, and was will be, indispensable. And we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic. In fact, if anything, the past week has shown that that idea is totally unserious.

Because while some people may enjoy the simplicity of takings A-side, this week is shown with total clarity that the US is vital in securing the peace we all want to see in Ukraine. So I welcome the opportunity for a new economic deal with the US, confirmed by the president last week. Because it is an opportunity I am determined to pursue. I welcome the positive discussions we had on European security. Including his clear support for Article 5 of. I welcome the understanding from our dialogue that our two nations will work together on security arrangements for a lasting peace in Ukraine.

I also welcome the president's continued commitment to that piece. Which nobody in this house should doubt for a second is sincere. I will now turn to the events of this weekend. And the moving scenes that greeted resident Zelensky as he arrived in London on Saturday. I saw for myself and was taken aback when the crowd in Whitehall cheered at the top of their voices, and they were speaking the whole of our country. A reminder that this government, this house, and this nation stand in unwavering support behind him and the people of Ukraine.

Mr Speaker, we resolved together to move forward in the strong cause of just and lasting peace in Ukraine. And then on Sunday, I hosted European leaders from across our continent, equally committed to this cause. Including President Macron, by Mr Maloney, the leaders of NATO, the European commission and Council, and the Prime Minister of Canada, a vital ally of this country, the Commonwealth, and Ukraine. Responsible for training over 40,000 Ukrainian troops. I also had the privilege beforehand of speaking online to the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia.

Each of whom, as close as they are to the front line with Russia, stressed the urgency of the moment. And Mr Speaker it was a productive summit. Together we agreed a clear strategy. That the United Kingdom, France, and our allies will work closely with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting. Which we will then discuss directly with the United States. It is a plan that has four clear principles. Which I now share in full with the house.

First, that we must keep the military aid to Ukraine flowing. Keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia, and to that end, alongside our partnership on air defence, we are doubling down on military aid. Already this year we have taken our support to record levels. On Saturday we also agreed a new £2.2 billion loan for Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer but by the profits from frozen Russian assets. Second, we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine.

And that Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating their future, that is absolutely vital. Third, we agrees that in the event of a peace deal, we will continue to boost Ukraine's defences and Ukraine's deterrence. And finally, fourth, we agreed to develop a coalition of the willing. Ready to defend a deal with Ukraine. And guarantee the piece. After all, Ukrainian position is completely understandable. For them, war did not begin three years ago.

That was merely the latest and most brutal escalation. They have signed agreements with Putin before. They have experienced the nature of his diplomacy and the calibre of his word. We cannot accept a weak deal like the Minsk agreement again. We must proceed with strength, and that does now require urgently a coalition of the willing. We agreed on Sunday that those willing to play a role in this would intensify planning now, and as this house would expect, Britain will play a leading role with if necessary, and together with others, boots on the ground and planes in the air.

It is right that Europe do the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent. But to succeed, this effort must also have strong US backing. I want to assure this house, I take none of this lightly. I have visited British troops in Estonia. No aspect of my role weighs more heavily than the deployment of British troops in the service of defence and security in Europe. And yet I do feel very strongly that the future of Ukraine is vital for our national security.

Russia is a menace in our waters and skies. They have launched cyber attacks on our NHS, assassination attempts in our streets stop in this house, we stand by Ukraine because it is the right thing to do. And we also stand by them because it is in our interests to do so. Because if we do not achieve a lasting peace, then the instability and insecurity that has hit the living standards of working people in Britain that will only get worse.

And Putin's appetite for conflict and chaos, that will only grow. So a strong piece, a just peace, a lasting peace, that has now to be our goal. It is vital, it is in our interests, and if pursued, in our interests, and if pursued, written will lead from the front because the security of our continent, the security of our country, and the security of the British people, we must now win the peace. I commend this statement to the house.

the house.
15:43
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)
-
-
I come to the Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch. Minister that for advanced sight of his statement and also for our conversation earlier today. United Kingdom is a free democratic and sovereign country. We recognise that Ukraine is fighting for her survival and fighting to have the same freedom, democracy, and sovereignty which all of us here enjoy. That is why both the opposition and the government are fully committed to supporting Ukraine and President Zelensky. I was also glad to see His Majesty The King welcome President Zelensky at Sandringham.

As I said at the weekend, President Zelensky is a hero. He is a symbol of the bravery of the Ukrainian people. There are of course many areas where the Prime Minister and I disagree but now is the time for us to discuss where we do agree. I welcome all of his actions this weekend to convene European leaders. As well as the focus on economic security, using UK Export Finance to support British jobs. As the Prime Minister notes, we welcome the uplift in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027.

We also support the use of foreign aid to achieve this. We welcome commitments to reach 3% in the years ahead and we will support him in taking difficult spending decisions including on welfare. And we will return to the details of how the government will fund this in the near future. But for now, it is right that the Prime Minister is working with allies in Europe including the United States, bring peace to Ukraine and not a surrender to Russia. As part of this, the Prime Minister has suggested his troops could be deployed in Ukraine.

There are honestly a range of possible options for what such a deployment could look like. And we are keen to work with the government, but we will need details of any such plan. This will be a difficult but significant step. I know many in parliament and across the country be interested in what this entails. I ask him to work with us to the can be effective scrutiny. I also welcome the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine and agree that Europe must do the heavy lifting.

Can I ask the Prime Minister to update us on what European and other allies are willing to offer towards this coalition? Can I welcome the use of the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine? And asked the Prime Minister if he has plans to go further and use the frozen assets themselves. Can I ask him for an update on the government sanctions on Russian linked individuals? And for confirmation that such sanctions will not be Can I ask the premise to update us on the steps he and other allies are taking to ensure Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace plan and what he things can be done to heal the rift with Washington? As the Prime Minster referenced in his speech the Minsk Agreements of 2015 failed to stop Russian aggression and ultimately did not return Ukraine's territorial integrity.

His second principle that any lasting peace guarantees the sovereignty of Ukraine. Can I finally ask how the Prime Minister will work to ensure we avoid a repeat of the Minsk Agreements and how we can ensure any piece fully protects Ukrainian sovereignty? At times like this it is so important to stand together to shared values and fundamental basic principles that aggressors should not prevail. The Prime Minister will have a support to do that and to ensure we continue to uphold those values all of us in this Parliament old dear.

-- Hold dear.
15:47
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Can I thank her for her message and our discussion this morning. Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support for the measures we are taking -- her support for the measures we are taking full to but matters across this House we are united on this issue. It matters to the Ukrainians and to President Zelensky. And I can tell you he was moved by the reception he got in our country on Saturday. I can tell you I felt very proud to be British on Saturday when our country spoke with one voice.

And she reflects that with the unity across the House. I do thank her for it. She asks about the details of any deployment. We will of course put details before the House when we get to that stage if we get to that stage. And as I mentioned to her this morning in our phone call I will make sure she gets whatever briefings she needs to be able to look at the detail before it is put before the House so she is fully informed.

On the question of other allies, we had a long meeting yesterday with a number of allies. I strongly view this as we have to move forward, we have to lead from the front and therefore we need a coalition of the willing because otherwise we will move at the speed of the most reluctant and that will be too slow. A number of countries and allies indicated their support. They will set out in due course. I will not pretend every country is in the same place on this issue.

That is why I and others took the view we should take a leading position and move forward. I will give further details as they become available. On the question of the frozen assets themselves, obviously the proceeds and the profits are being used in the way the House understands in the statement I just made. And the assets themselves it is a very complicated issue. It is not straightforward. But I do think we need to do and are doing more work to look at what other possibilities of these? Along with other countries.

I am not going to pretend this is simple or straightforward. On the sanctions, we introduced the heaviest sanctions last week that we have put in place. She is quite right they must not be lifted just because there is a cessation in the fighting. They must be kept in place as a vital part of our armoury. Something which did not with Minsk which she is quite right to say. We have to avoid the mistakes of the past which is why a security guarantee is so important.

A guarantee we should lead but need US backing for this to act as a proper guarantee. Of course she is right to say Ukraine must be at the table in any discussions about the future review and I think that is a common review and I think that is a common position across the House. position across the House.
15:50
15:51
15:52
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for advanced sight of his statement. We are all horrified by Fridays scenes in the Oval Office. President Trump's attack on the brave and dignified President Zelensky left everyone shocked and awed except it seems the honourable member for Clacton. Nobody else in those scenes could fail to understand we have entered a new era. One where the United States prefers to align itself with tyrants like Putin rather than its democratic partners.

On these benches we have supported the Prime Minister in his actions and leadership. Britain leading the world as we have so many times in the past bringing together Europe and Canada in London to work towards a just peace that guarantees Ukrainian sovereignty and security. We need to reduce our dependency on the United States. The USA with deep regret I fear President Trump is not a reliable ally with respect to Russia. In that regard did the Prime Minister discuss with our European allies our proposals for new banks and for seizing the tens of thousands of pounds worth of Russian assets to support Ukraine? In his conversations with the Canadian Prime Minister was he clear we stand with our Commonwealth ally in the face of President Trump's threats? Many of us were confused by Lord Mandelson's comments yesterday.

Can the Prime Minister confirm they do not represent government policy? Does he agree the British Ambassador should not be freelancing on American TV? The Prime Minister will have our support if the UK continues to lead with our European Commonwealth allies for Ukraine's defence and our collective security. defence and our collective security.
15:54
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
I thank him for his question and he talks about the scene on Friday afternoon. Nobody wants to see that. My response was to recognise the urgency of the need to repair the breach which is why I spoke to President Trump and President Zelensky on Friday night and again Zelensky on Friday night and again on Saturday night and I am continuing with that work. Because for me the single most important thing is lasting peace in Europe and Ukraine and nothing is going to deter me from that all is my fingers on that.

-- Or lose my focus on that. On dependency with the US, I do not agree with him. The US and the UK have the closest of relationships. Our defence, our security, our intelligence are completely intertwined. No two countries are as close as our two countries and it would be a huge mistake at a time like this to suggest any weakening of that link is the way forward for security and defence in Europe. On the question of a rearmament plan, yes I do think we should discussion -- we should continue discussions with others as to what possibilities could be in that form some of the discussion yesterday with allies again on assets.

He knows the situation is complicated but there are ongoing discussions. I spoke at length with the Canadian Prime Minister yesterday because we had a bilateral meeting as well as the meeting with other colleagues in which I was able to assure him of our strong support for Canada, a close ally of ours. A strong supporter in Ukraine. Canada have led the way on the training that has been so vital to Ukraine. So we are very -- they were very welcome at the table yesterday for top in relation to the Ambassador's comments, the plan is clear, we are working particularly with the French but extensive conversations with President Macron over the last week.

Intensively over the weekend. Talking to Ukraine as well, those are going on at the moment and the intention is to then have discussions with the United States in relation to that plan. Souness the details are available I will share them with the House but they are still being worked on at the moment. There is no guarantee of success but I'm not going to let up until we have done everything we can to ensure peace in Europe and peace for Ukraine. for Ukraine.
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:16
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:27
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:34
16:35
16:35
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:38
16:39
16:40
16:40
16:40
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:44
16:45
16:45
16:46
16:46
16:46
16:47
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:49
16:49
16:50
16:51
16:51
16:51
16:52
16:53
16:53
16:54
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:56
16:57
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:59
16:59
17:00
17:00
17:01
17:01
17:02
17:03
17:03
17:03
17:04
17:05
17:05
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:08
17:08
17:08
17:09
17:09
17:09
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:11
17:12
17:12
17:13
17:13
17:14
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:16
17:16
17:17
17:18
17:18
17:19
17:19
17:20
17:20
17:21
17:22
17:22
17:23
17:23
17:24
17:24
17:25
17:25
17:26
17:26
17:27
17:28
17:29
17:31
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
Taxes are up. Borrowing is up. Unemployment is up. Energy bills are Unemployment is up. Energy bills are up. I could go on. But most tellingly of all, growth is down. The Bank of England has cut its growth forecast for this year in growth forecast for this year in half to just another 0.75%. Little wonder that business confidence has plummeted and the firms warning of fewer jobs and lower wages and higher prices, but instead of backing risktakers and supporting both creators as we on the side of both creators as we on the side of the House to, this is a Finance bill and a budget that attacks enterprise, to the best our growth, higher borrowing, and higher taxes.

I turn now to close number-one, concerning pensions. Millions of pensioners were left out in the cold this winter when the Government took away their Winter Fuel Payments. Now millions only receiving the State

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pension phase. Income tax on it. I am grateful for the shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for the shadow minister for giving way. When the Government decided to take away the Government decided to take away the Winter Fuel Payments, one of the things they said was you can go for things they said was you can go for pension credit to get some support. The problem is there are huge delays in getting pension credit. When it was first put out was 84 days, 500 new staff have been brought in, but new staff have been brought in, but it is still 56 days above 50 day limit that is supposed to be there.

Does he share my concerns, this is the problem with these people now passing through the PM's and still do not have the funds they're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

entitled to in this Government and they are not there. I absolutely agree with my honourable friend. He has done is honourable friend. He has done is done about enjoying those delays and the waiting times to get that data out of the department under course we know if everyone took a Pension Credit was entitled to it did so that would wipe out the savings that that would wipe out the savings that the Chancellor wanted, so the idea that she wanted all of those people to take a Pension Credit I think is for the birds.

This amendment would require the Government to review how many people receiving the new State many people receiving the new State Pension at the full rate will be liable to pay income tax in the coming years. The general election we were very clear that people only in receipt of the State Pension should not pay income tax on it, however recent forecasts suggest that an estimated 9 million pensioners pay income tax on their State Pension in April 2024. Pensioners cannot easily their financial situation, yet they were given just six months notice they would be leaving their winter few will allowance, so they cannot be blindsided for a second time by the taxman.

The tax committee said the data on this was available, but I do not think that is correct because the figures he referred to do not breakdown the cohort that we are talking about here, the recipients of the full rate of the new State Pension, so will he commit to publishing data on how many people receiving the new State Pension will pay income tax on it? And this potential hit cannot come at a worse time for pensioners, having lost the Winter Fuel Payment we learned last week that energy bills are going up you to gain, if our cry from the £300 cut that they were promised last election for the party opposite.

And the budget, the Chancellor also made much of the announcement that she would upgrade the personal tax thresholds in line with inflation from 2028. However, that is not legislated for in this bill and the public are being asked to take the Government at face value, yet recent reports suggest that this promise may be dropped, given the impact of budget on growth and higher borrowing. Given that number of broken promises we have seen since the election, can the Minister reconfirm from the despatch boxes government's commitment to unfreeze the thresholds for 2028.

As well as pensioners, it is working people who cannot for the cost of this Labour Government. Working people that the Prime Minister promised at the election he would not hit with higher taxes and then broke that promise with the £25 billion. Job tax. Happily.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my right honourable friend and just confirm which Government it was that left taxes at Government it was that left taxes at a 70 year high and also which Government led to interest rates at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government led to interest rates at a record high and inflation record high and this time so many mortgage holders. Well, the last Government had to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the last Government had to deal with it global pandemic and an energy price hop, but I happy to enlighten the honourable gentleman, enlighten the honourable gentleman, taxes are going up in the budget and the Finance bill that he is supporting, so if he is worried about the tax burden then he should not be voting for the tax bill today. The households are facing financial challenges and the measures of the bill will only make things worse. The APR products real household disposable income will fall by 1.25% by the start of 2029.

Largely due to measures in the budget, so new clause 3 requires the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes on household finances. The situation is this Chancellor and the governance that means borrowing is increasing and interest rates will be higher and mortgages will be higher as we see hard-working families pay billions of pounds to pay off the debt interest. The Government inherited inflation and the target and since then inflation has gone up meaningless money in people's pockets.

While it is the Chancellor's wider mishandling of the economy that is tracking the headlights that measures of the bill will have a direct role in squeezing households, whether it is higher staff duty, air passenger duty, K's increases, vehicle excise duty, changes to the tax, change movement of hybrid vehicles and many other measures in this bill, the cost of the bill will be felt directly by households across the UK when households are stretched it is essential we have transparency about what the actions of the Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are doing in their incomes. I am grateful to my honourable friend and of course the measure in friend and of course the measure in the budget on tax-raising was as my honourable friend says the National Insurance contribution rises, 25 billion impact on the economy. Yet once you have taken the compensation once you have taken the compensation for the public services and the negative impact on activity, it only nets above 10 million. It is a nets above 10 million.

It is a peculiarly ridiculous policy that nets only 10 billion or 11 billion. And yet according to the OBR numbers takes 19 billion out of people's pay takes 19 billion out of people's pay

**** Possible New Speaker ****

packets. Surely does my honourable friend agree there has never been a more ridiculous measure that costs or much and delivered so little. I think my right honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my right honourable friend makes the point that this not to increase national insurance at all. I turn to new clause 2 concerning the government's plan to concerning the government's plan to undermine energy security by increasing the energy profits levy to 38%, bringing the headline rate on oil and gas activities to 78%. Extending the tax by year and removing investment allowances. And the consequences, fairly predictably, they said that it would choke off billions of pounds of investment in the North Sea are putting 35,000 jobs at risk.

I give way to the honourable friend. Government does the honourable friend not agree that such a rate is good enough in Norway clean energy Power is it not Goodenough or the United Kingdom smack

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insured, no, I do not, that is why we voted against it previously. We should be maximising our home- grown energy, not undermining domestic production and choosing to domestic production and choosing to rely instead on import supplying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

carbon emissions. I agree, is the point the Prime Minister has come to this despatch Minister has come to this despatch boxes only today to talk about how economy is security and security starts with our defence and looking starts with our defence and looking after ourselves including energy security is the question, so isn't it ridiculous to not use oil from our own reserves, to make sure we have that security and the cleaner side of oil and gas as well as the jobs old without importing it in a volatile world.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. I wonder if when the Prime Minister was in Washington last week wishing to talk to President Trump about home-grown President Trump about home-grown energy and the importance of supporting the domestic sector and supporting the domestic sector and that is what we on this side of the that is what we on this side of the 200 and 200,000 high score jobs because it is a point we have an up-to-date assessment of the up-to-date assessment of the Government is doing on our domestic energy production, energy security, energy prices and the UK economy and unfortunately we are already seeing some of the impact that the US firm has already said that it will end its operations in the North Sea by the end of 2029, blaming the increase in extension of the profits

**** Possible New Speaker ****

levy for making that beyond that. As members, Grateful to my honourable friend because the uncertainty of this is it is fine with the international insurance contributions change to be insurance contributions change to be the most absurd measure and I think the most absurd measure and I think that Whitehead it wins because we have a Prime Minister saying we must have energy security, we have got a Climate Change Committee that says Climate Change Committee that says we still need oil and gas for 25% of our energy needs if we meet net zero our energy needs if we meet net zero in 2050 and they will have no more licences, so we lose tens of thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of tax, and the very engineering capability that we need to have that transition.

It is absurd on every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

single possible front. My honourable friend is 100% correct and I think that we all know the architect of much of this is the the architect of much of this is the energy secretary taking a rather fundamentalist approach to this towards the cup of farmland with towards the cup of farmland with solar farms and once to undermine the oil and gas sector. On the side the oil and gas sector. On the side we disagree. It was the previous Government who introduced this levy in the first place, but that was to in the first place, but that was to tackle extraordinary profits and add an extra time the revenue helped to an extra time the revenue helped to keep energy bills low of all of our constituents and for now the Government is ratcheting up the levy and seems to want to tax we will see an exploration out of existence and this is just a further example of the government's ill-conceived energy policy for energy and net zero vanity project that will not generate any energy or be an energy supplier and will certainly not learn the £300 in bills.

The final Amendment 67 /69 table in my name would remove clause 47 and abolish Labour's education tax. Since 1 January, independents fees for education and vocational training have been subject to VAT of 20%. The first time that education has been subject to VAT. Why is that? Because education is a public good, so we do not tax it. And putting VAT on independent schools particularly hurts those on the most broadest incomes who have chosen to save and make sacrifices to send their children to the school that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think will serve them best. This is one of the issues we would comment on, we have a number of schools in Northern Ireland who of schools in Northern Ireland who will be impacted greatly by these fees and they have contacted us even fees and they have contacted us even at this stage is that the Government reconsider that point. Does he agree that they will be impacted more than perhaps there's an impact on them in particular will be gross? particular will be gross?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do agree with my honourable friend on that point and obviously everyone would have the opportunity of this amendment is moved and selected for a vote to strip this measure out of the bill. And on of those parents on modest incomes getting a tax break but they are also contributing to find places in the state sector, whether or not they take them but ultimately this is a tax aspiration and it is one oppose and at committee we raised the concerns about the impact on certain groups, including children with special educational needs, small schools, face schools, and indeed military families.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my honourable friend who has been very generous and just touch an issue of children with touch an issue of children with special educational needs because this is not just about parents making a choice but this is about people with no choice, people whose children have been bullied, who have children have been bullied, who have other special needs that just have not met in the state sector and have made the sacrifice to go in the private sector and those people with private sector and those people with children in particular need are going to pay the price of this ill thought through measure.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

thought through measure. Once again my right honourable friend is consistently absolutely right but the point is there are more than 100,000 pupils in independent schools with SEMD who do not have an education health and cloud asthma care plan. I amateur they will have to pay VAT on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because it is not covered by the Government. Is it not true however that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it not true however that students are exempt in this students are exempt in this proposal? And is it not a surprise that whilst the opposition is that whilst the opposition is focused on this the very small number that go to independent schools we are focused on ensuring that we have good education for the large majority of our children in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

state schools. I am afraid the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am afraid the honourable gentleman is flat wrong. Children with SEND you do not have an education health and care plan go to independent school and have to play the 20% VAT, so I would hope that they may have understood that fairly fundamental point. That will make those places unaffordable for parents with many of the pressures to the state system with demand for places where there is no capacity and squeeze cancel budgets, but this is just another part of the education secretaries ideological approach that seeks to divide.

We approach that seeks to divide. We care about all children on the side and we simply believe parents should be able to choose the school that is best for their child and we are seeing the impact in real time. The Governments own estimate suggests there will be 100 schools closing over the next three years, the school in the prime Ministers own constituency said it will close this summer due to the impact of VAT as School closures, dedicated staff losing their jobs, students having their education affected, this is the effect of the policy and I hope members will support our amendment.

On the side of the House I welcome inward investment. We welcome risktakers and as this government is chasing growth, one might think they will be sending a message that Britain is open for business, but the plans for non-dom's including inheritance tax avoid caused a significant exodus of investors from the UK. Last year, over 10,000 millionaires left the country, 157% increase compare to the before. That's the equivalent, the Adam Smith Institute estimates to losing an income tax take of over half a million average taxpayers.

Now at Davos we discussed this in committee. The Chancellor said she would amend this proposal by as they made the UK less attractive. But frankly the damages are done. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned that with the lack of proper consideration and consultation, the amendments introduced we are discussing this evening still leave uncertainty which is counter- productive if the intention is to encourage those people to stay until those concerns looking for investors in the UK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She said the Chancellor at Davos said she had listened to that community. Why does she make changes community. Why does she make changes for that community yet not the farming community or the pensioner farming community or the pensioner community or the pupils private schools or SEND amenities? Or did those working businesses such as those working businesses such as pubs, restaurants, charities were all seeing tax increases? Why was all seeing tax increases? Why was that community listened to and not others? They have an idea why that could be the case?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could be the case? Man Noble Friend invites me to get inside the head of the Chancellor. I'm not sure that I would be able to do that. Knows those other groups he talks about should also be listened to. The Chancellor has shown herself to be timid, tickly on farming and the impact on family farms and Tomorrow there is yet another protest. I read at the weekend another brave Labour MP coming out saying he opposes these changes and wanted to see reforms, and perhaps some of the others are here to speak this afternoon so that they too stand with the farmers in their constituency.

To conclude, the Prime Minister and Chancellor set growth as the mission for this government. They inherited an economy growing at the fastest rate in the G7. But their choices in the budget and in this Finance bill have stopped growth stone dead. They've hiked taxes, undermined business confidence, pushed up inflation, hit working people and pensioners. Later this month, we will get the economic and fiscal forecast. We can already see is a Labour government committed to higher taxes, higher spending and higher borrowing.

And we are all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paying the price. New clause 1, review of impact of section 1 on recipients of the full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rate of the new state pension. The question is that new clause 1 The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause 1B read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. For allowing me to rise and speak in this debate.
17:49
Jeevun Sandher Portrait Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)
-
-
rise and speak in this debate. Economic growth, the ability to do more with less is the foundation of all human progress. It's why we are not all scratching around in the dirt desperately hoping something will grow. But there is no economic law that says that when the economy grows, all must share in it. And in decades past, it has not. Growth has gone to high earners over everyone else. The old rather than the young. To capital over labour, and to London versus everywhere else.

This is tearing our democracy apart, and it's tearing others apart. And that is why I am so proud to speak in favour of this Finance bill that will help ensure that economic growth is shared between all people growth is shared between all people and all places. Before entering this place, I used to work as an economist. My PhD was on the causes and consequences of inequality. This chamber may know that. And particularly unwise is the 1980s, people and places have not shared equally in growth.

Now in my adult life I have never known a growing economy. And now my beard is turning grey. And I want to see... I know right? I will look like Gandalf by the end of this. But I want to see the dotted line on that chart labelled GDP finally going up. But that is not enough. We have to ask all sharing in that growth. Growth for wear and growth for whom? And the only way to ensure that all share in the growth is for governments, indeed this government to act.

Because when people do not share in growth, when incomes do not rise, when life becomes worse, hope turns to cynicism. Happiness to anchor. And peace to riots. Now there are four ways that growth has not been shared by all, and we are fixing all four in this budget. Firstly, across high income nations, top earners have seen their pay rise far faster than the rest. Technological change destroyed manufacturing jobs, and led to a divided labour market with high and low paid jobs.

High-paid workers benefited from new technology, computers, excel and PowerPoint. And those high-paid workers saw their wages increase 50% faster than the average. Now we are helping fix that in this budget by investing in the skills of nongraduates, more money for further education colleges and apprenticeships. Secondly, older generations have benefited from cheaper homes while younger renters cannot buy a home. Because we have failed to build enough homes in this country. 20 years ago, House prices three times the average wage.

Today, they are eight times the average wage. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. Would you agree with me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. Would you agree with me that one thing that can be done very quickly would be for this Government to legislate that all B&Bs for example need to have planning permission to be a B&Bs because that permission to be a B&Bs because that would release a lot of short-term lets back into the market for longer term let's the younger people?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

term let's the younger people? I thank the honourable member. I'm sure the government will consider these measures in the round, but more broadly as well on the side of that of course is about the side of that of course is about building just a lot more homes. 40% of 18 to 34-year-olds are living with mum and dad. And that is what we are starting to fix in this budget. A 20% increase in the affordable homes program, a stepping stone to the 1.5 alien homes -- million.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

You will know that housing targets have gone up in Leicestershire. In my patch, is up Leicestershire. In my patch, is up by 59% and 73%. However, in the Leicester City, they are dropping by Leicester City, they are dropping by 31%. Why is that the case when they 31%. Why is that the case when they have brownfield sites, the best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

connection? Surely if the case that we need houses everywhere, should we see houses being built in the city at the same time, not just in the countryside? The housing form it has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The housing form it has rightfully been changed to where they need us most, but I think about my constituency for example, those Not have planning permission approved for new homes, I've seen too much and too few homes being built and too many things being rejected. So very proud of this governments aim to build new homes. I have full faith in the formula and we need more homes everywhere, including in both of our constituencies. I believe the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable member here would have a point. My honourable friend is making an excellent point. An excellent speech if I may say so. I think he is right to highlight the importance of to highlight the importance of housing and the bodies of housing both in terms of quality-of-life for our residents but also labour mobility and many other benefits to the economy. And if I may commence the economy. And if I may commence to him good example of Redding where there are many brownfield sites there are many brownfield sites which are being redeveloped, and in fact the honourable gentleman opposite may wish to visit Berkshire and see how well we are rebuilding in our town centres in our part of the country, and indeed many other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cities and towns around the country. Couldn't agree more. Perhaps we should all take a trip to Reading and see the great work they are doing over there. Because there is a doing over there. Because there is a lot more homes we have to build and indeed for my generation now finding more and more that working hard, getting a good job is not a getting a good job is not a guarantee of earning or owning a home in the end, and that's what this government is fixing.

And indeed is what this budget is indeed is what this budget is fixing. But alongside this rather young, not sharing in growth, we have another side to this as well that is growth has gone to capital that is growth has gone to capital over labour. Technological change many machines can do tasks far more many machines can do tasks far more cheaply than humans used to do. More payments to capital means less to workers. The labour share of income on GDP fallen by six 's my ASIC since deindustrialisation.

And as we've seen across the Atlantic,...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Can I just remind the honourable member that it is imperative he speaks to the finance imperative he speaks to the finance bill and the amendments in it. Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rehashing budget speech. Well this is a budget that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well this is a budget that is investing in the future. And indeed investing in the future. And indeed It is a budget that is moving forward, but I do want to cover some of the other bits of this Finance bill. Indeed the bits that it covers. It's a budget that is investing a Finance bill this is investing in labour-intensive sectors like early years childcare

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the warm homes plan. Very much enjoying the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much enjoying the honourable member speech, and in order to give him a few minutes to gather his thoughts, remind him as the deputy, chair did. This is the finance bill chair did. This is the finance bill the new clause 1, in relation to state pensions. This new clause state pensions. This new clause would require a review of how many people receive the new State Pension at the full rate, liable to pay at the full rate, liable to pay income tax this year and in the next four tax years, and specifically what the tax liability of the state pension income would be.

The honourable member care to provide

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House with his thoughts on new clause 1? I thank them for his help and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank them for his help and assistance in this matter. The aim here is not only on the other side of it. On the one side to help absolutely improve pension incomes but on the one side the tax change but the triple lock that will ensure that the amount going to those pensioners will increase by £400, pensioners will increase by £400, April. And indeed seen the travelogue as I think we would agree across this House has helped pensioners immeasurably.

I think it's right at this point that I draw this speech to a close. I would like to thank all the honourable members for their help in this debate. At this moment, and I would also say that I would like to thank yourself as well at this moment. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I rise to speak to new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I rise to speak to new clauses 4, five, six, 78 and have few additional comments at the end. New clause 4 table domain name is a New clause 4 table domain name is a review of the impact of the act on small and medium-sized enterprises. And this new clause would require an impact assessment to be conducted. We rehearsed in this House many times the impact of the governance budget on small and medium-sized budget on small and medium-sized enterprises, including through the National Insurance contributions rise, the changes to business rates, and of course in the Finance bill...

Sorry, of course plans to change IHT and BPR as well. We are very concerned about the impact of the budget as a whole on small and medium-sized enterprises. The impact on our high streets in particular, and of course on family businesses. It's really inconceivable that this is going ahead without an impact assessment, and figured the government to look at doing this. government to look at doing this. New clause 5 is a clause that requires the Chancellor to assess and publish a report on how tax changes in this act impact households at various income levels.

We all know of course that the cost of borrowing is at a 30-year high. And after the misery of the mini- Budget, mortgage holders in particular, with will be
17:59
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
particularly concerned about that. And just as we are concerned about And just as we are concerned about some of the things in the Finance bill, we are concerned about things that are not in the Finance bill. We are concerned, and we outlined this in our recent amendment against the in our recent amendment against the bill at second reading that it does not include measures to reverse the not include measures to reverse the winter fuel payment cuts, and more recently, we Liberal Democrats have called for an energy social tariff as well, and I hope the government as well, and I hope the government considers this in due course.

New clause 6 would require the government to produce a report setting out the fiscal impact of the bills changes to the energy profits levy investment expenditure relief. As we said in this House many times, it was the Liberal Democrats who first called for a windfall tax on the big oil and gas companies. In the last Parliament, it was introduced, but seven months after we first called for it, and it was It also included a very large loophole. Had been raised soon and without the loophole, it would have raised significantly more money.

Money that could have been used for an emergency home insulation scheme to refuse people's energy usage, which would be better for the environment and also better for people's pockets as well. This particular clause is a measure that would enable the government to publish how much money they will be raising through this particular measure, and if that were to go ahead, we would of course encourage them to look at how much money could have been raised that the measure be introduced when we first called for Close seven would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the impact on pupils who have special educational needs but do not have an education health and care plan.

We know the Government has introduced an exception for children who do have an EHCP plan, but as member's of this House on all sides will know, there are children who do have diagnosed special educational needs were in some cases they are omitting that diagnosis who do not have that education health and care plan and in my own constituency, for example, we have a double whammy of the Conservative led County administration they have received the worst possible Ofsted rating for their SEND services.

At the symptom, we have been severely disadvantaged by the very outdated funding formula. Which put Hertfordshire at a huge disadvantage. At the moment, it would take us 15 years to catch up with Labour in Bucks in terms of the money you and even neighbouring Bucks joins us in the bottom 40 Bucks joins us in the bottom 40 worst funded councils in the country. So, clearly we want that country -- funding formula to be fixed and also to see our local service provision improved as well.

But, fundamentally, there are many families who are struggling with the SEND service. Like many other members, I am sure, I have received a number of emails from constituents who recognise that in St Albans we are very lucky and very blessed with a number of very high performing, sometimes outstanding, state schools. And get some families recognise they may get one or two children in a state school but because of the particular needs of one of their children they may choose to put one child in a private school and amongst the examples there was one that really stood out to me.

If the Colette family contacted me to say that they have other children who are in state schools and one particular child was not getting on well in the state school, so they chose to put this child into a private school and it was only at that point at the private school they then contacted the state school, particularly the SEND department to find out if any previous support had been put in place. It turns out that their child had been put through a range of assessments and had performed quite poorly and was well below the acceptable levels of processing and comprehension.

Even though she had gone through these assessments, no additional support had been put in place, apart from awarding extra

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time because it was simply not possible. I will give way. Thank you very much. My I ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. My I ask the member is that precisely the point that state system does not have the capacity or the means to support children who need special children who need special educational needs and the additional educational needs and the additional £1 billion investment will be reached getting rid of the VAT exception will help deliver not only exception will help deliver not only the 6,500 new teachers but also the additional support for special educational needs children in our state system.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

state system. Thank you. I am grateful to the honourable member for her intervention. We disagree on this point. Fundamentally, we Liberal Democrats have said that we should rise the tide for all children and we do not believe that involves lowering the tide for someone particular. We had a very ambitious agenda for education in our manifesto in the general election last year in some areas we had in common, some not, with the Labour Party. But we had a very ambitious agenda for education, including having a specific Government high needs budget as well.

I have campaigned in this House on improving provision relentlessly for the last five or six years in this chamber at Westminster Hall debates but we do not think that this particular measure is a measure that is needed in order to improve school funding in particular. We think that there are the measures that could be used. It is a difference of opinion about how you raise that money.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful. In response to the right honourable lady opposite it is appropriate at say I suggest of course that she suggests and simply course that she suggests and simply asks to look at the measure of the impact a look at whether the damage impact a look at whether the damage it does is to grid to justify in the broader sense and therefore I would hope the Government would consider looking at this and taking it looking at this and taking it seriously and following the argument by the honourable lady.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the honourable member for highlighting that this is indeed about an impact assessment. Colleagues on Labour benches are aware this measure is going to come into effect quickly but it will not provide instant support that many of these children need right now. If you disrupt children's education immediately it means that they will then suffer disadvantages in their life if this was a measure that the Government wanted to pursue I was going to hope that it would at least be in a furious time to allow for that adjustment.

But do not supported and we do at the very least is that right honourable member has suggested having an impact assessment on this measure. New clause 8 on alcohol duties, this is a close that would require the Government on the measures on distilleries and the hospitality industry. Since 2022 I have tabled numerous questions in this House, let us written to the Treasury evidence of falling tax receipts and falling sales as it result of the planned measures that they are now introducing and the members will introduce huge amounts of redtape that will be very complicated, very costly, and ultimately they push up prices for consumers as well as for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the industry. I will give way. Thank you for giving way. May I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. May I draw the House to this interest I would like to voice my support for her amendment which would require her amendment which would require the Government to review the impact of alcohol duty on these sectors. Scotch whiskey is one of Britain's Scotch whiskey is one of Britain's greatest industries. Accounting for 22% of the whole of Britain's food 22% of the whole of Britain's food and drinks industry and supporting tens of thousands of jobs. Yet tens of thousands of jobs.

Yet despite repeated assurance from the Government the industry continues to face strong duty costs. Since the duty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. I think the Right Honourable Members intervention is likely to long. He is on the list to speak in due course. Maybe he can make his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

due course. Maybe he can make his point about Scotch whiskey then. Basic above. Thank you. I am grateful to my honourable friend for raising the plight of Scotch whiskey my husband plight of Scotch whiskey my husband is an airship manager and doing his part to keep the industry going. Notwithstanding it would help if the Government did not issue these particular duties. Nearby constituency this is a particular importer of fine wines and one of importer of fine wines and one of their products as part.

Art is not the kind of drink that many people sit and glug like they might do. But the matter with a cheaper form of alcohol. But most families around the United Kingdom the court is the kind of drink that they might buy for an occasion, for a birthday or for Christmas or for a wedding or something of that kind. It is not typically the kind of drink that you might glug, except for if you people in the House, in such volumes as other alcoholic drinks.

Nonetheless, they will be impacted by these measures and it will really affect a huge amount of innovation in this industry which is a prize to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economy. Cast your mind back to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cast your mind back to the mention of Scotch whiskey. In relation to whiskey as well for Christmas and there were deep concerns over jobs, employment and the future. Distilleries and the jobs that they have and I mentioned jobs that they have and I mentioned the distillery and they have those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerns. I am grateful to the honourable member for adding his support and I hope that he joined us in the voting lobbies later. Just finally just touching briefly on the Government amendments introduced, needless to say the changes provide a very comprehensive roofing to all MPs on the 57 amendments on part two of the bill, the proposals are not have become a little bit hodgepodge, the chartered has now strongly kidded for proper consultation. They warn of uncertainty which has been introduced through these particular measures and they also warned that the drafting of some of the amendments may inadvertently achieve the opposite of what the Government is trying to achieve, so simply on that note I would encourage Ministers to meet with the chartered to heed their warnings to ensure that this is properly drafted to ensure there is no uncertainty that is introduced through them.

Liberal Democrats have tabled a number of clauses and we push them to a vote

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we hope that house does. Thank you. Thank you. It is a pleasure once

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. It is a pleasure once again to contribute to the debate on this important piece of legislation. this important piece of legislation. In number of amendments have been tabled by members across the House and while I do not have time to cover them all I will address the cover them all I will address the key ones. And as I said the Committee of the whole House previously, this is a crucial bill that underpins the new government's aim of fixing a tax system that has aim of fixing a tax system that has become as fair and less sustainable over the last 14 years of Conservative Government and I unconscious of the need to confine my remarks to the amendments rather than the bill itself but I want to remind everyone this bill was necessary due to the experience that this Government found on entering the office last year.

 Is full to the honourable gentleman giving way. He said that the tax system had come less fare over the 14 years. Is that because he opposes an increase in the tax he opposes an increase in the tax burden as they are higher paid? Because that is what happened over the 14 years. Is he opposed and does not see that it is fair on those lower than average earnings they actually saw the share of the tax take go down? Is he opposed to that? take go down? Is he opposed to that? What we're precisely for that deeper understanding of the tax system over the last 40 years has he concluded that it came less fair?
18:11
Jim Dickson Portrait Jim Dickson MP (Dartford, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. Taxes when the last Government left of at the highest level for 70 years, thresholds had been frozen, bringing more people into a higher tax rates that were fair on those workers and the Government dedicated to try to make sure that taxes are paid by those with the broadest shoulders and the best able to pay them. If I might make just edited bit of progress once more that would be lovely. Members and the frontbenchers opposite have tabled clauses 1, two, three, four, five, six, eight, which create a requirement on the Government to undertake a number of reviews of the impact measures included in this legislation and these range and publishing the assessment of the expected impact changes to the impact oil and gas profits levy on domestic energy production, the UK energy security.

Energy prices in the UK economy to requiring the Chancellor to produce an assessment of the changes in the bill finances of households at a range of different income levels. I would gently remind the members opposite that much of the information requested is already available. With details on tax liabilities published by the H MR, the OBR, and the impacts of the changes set out in documents published the Autumn Budget including in the tax information and impact and the impact on households.

impact and the impact on households. Report. I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are able to scrutinise those impacts, when a pensioner now has to appear tax on the state pension they appear tax on the state pension they will have to do a self assessment tax or pay it back, how will he explain that to those pensioners when they come to him in his when they come to him in his constituency surgery to explain exactly what is going on because exactly what is going on because they do not have the technical ability many will, in some way, to understand why they are now being taxed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Can I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention, he seems remarkably well informed already about the impact of the changes in the budget and I would imagine Honourable Members across this House will also be similarly informed already. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined her desire for a British equivalent of Elon musk's Department equivalent of Elon musk's Department of Government efficiency. I wonder how she can square that desire with these amendments which, if passed, would seek to duplicate work already done by Government.

Hardly of efficiency. Like, in my view,. I am

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to give way. I am grateful to that member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to that member forgiving with. In the new clause 8 on alcohol the member will see that we are not asking just four and impact assessment of the taxation. impact assessment of the taxation. But also for an assessment of estimation of the administrative and operational costs for the preceding operational costs for the preceding 12 months which have already been 12 months which have already been incurred by this fantastic part of our industry. Would he agree with me our industry.

Would he agree with me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It would seem to me that by writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and putting out Parliamentary Questions, requesting the information, it would be more than possible for her to gain the than possible for her to gain the data that she is requiring, and therefore to be able to make a case, therefore to be able to make a case, no doubt across this House. New clause 2 refers to the governance changes to the oil and gas profits changes to the oil and gas profits levy.

These crucial changes would see an increase in the rate of the levy to 38% from 35%, and in total levy to 38% from 35%, and in total will raise £6 billion to underpin will raise £6 billion to underpin investment, delivering on our missions, getting the NHS back on its feet, and supporting growth across the country are laudable changes in the budget, and I wouldn't want to support any of the amendments tonight which will put these budget... These benefits at risk. New clause 4 tabled by the honourable member for Saint Albans would require the Chancellor to conduct an impact assessment of the act on small but medium-sized enterprises.

I'm sympathetic to the honourable members desire to support small businesses. But I'm unpersuaded that this amendment is the best way to do it. All the measures in the budget had tax information and impact notes published with the budget, and I would remind different listening that this was a good budget for small businesses as the Federation for Small businesses said on the day

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against a challenging backdrop, today's budget shows a clear... Order. Finance bill, not budget. Debating the Finance bill and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments to it. Thank you. Simply intending to illustrate why the changes proposed tonight and in this House don't actually help what the government is attempting to achieve by the Finance attempting to achieve by the Finance bill. So as the FSB said, this bill. So as the FSB said, this budget shows a clear direction, business policy now for the whole of this Parliament to target support small businesses rather than big corporate's. As other members have stated, this government is supporting SMEs by more than doubling the employment allowance, by keeping small profit rates stable, maintaining the annual investment allowance and freezing the small business rate multiplier.

So I ask members not to forget that this is an important part of legislation, underpinning measures announced in the budget that helped fix the NHS, incentivise capital investment and rebuild Britain.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. This Finance bill implements the 2024 Autumn Budget. implements the 2024 Autumn Budget. And that was a bad budget, and this is a bad bill. It punishes businesses, discourages entrepreneurship, and raises taxes
18:18
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
entrepreneurship, and raises taxes on those trying to make a living. It will lead to job losses, reduced investment, and higher prices. It will lead to higher interest rates and higher government debt. Which will lead to lower growth. If you want to make a list of things that our economy need, this Finance bill would be a good starting point. This Finance bill is built on broken promises. And the amendments tabled try and help the government to keep its promises in its manifesto.

During the election, Labour told the public that plans were fully costed and fully funded. The manifesto said they would increase funding by £11 billion. So how can they now justify an increase in spending of £70 billion a year? Funded by an extra 40 billion in taxes and 30 billion in borrowing? Because even if you believe the fairy story of the black hole, told by the benches opposite, which I do not, 11 billion +22 billion does not equal 70 billion.

Is not the truth that the Labour Party always planned a large increase in taxes and borrowing? But didn't have the courage to tell the British people in advance? Now the Chancellor and the Prime Minister insisted that working people would be protected. But it's clear now that either they were wrong or they don't consider small business owners, Republicans or farmers to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working people. Does not recognise one of the primary challenges faced by some of primary challenges faced by some of those sectors that he mentioned is that of workers inability to afford that of workers inability to afford to live in the areas where they to live in the areas where they work, such as in Cornwall, and that actually the changes to stamp duty land tax will go a long way to improving the ability of workers to improving the ability of workers to be housed in what are currently so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many cases in Cornwall second homes? Do they not recognise the potential contribution of that? I'm sure there are one or two good parts to this Finance bill. But I'm afraid the honourable gentleman was elected on a manifesto that said he would increase spending by £11 billion, and that was fully costed. Yet this Finance bill increases spending by £70 billion. And just wondered why he and his honourable friends didn't have the courage to put that before the British people at the election? Now small and medium-sized enterprises, the hard- working entrepreneurs that run them are the backbone of our economy.

And they are the victims of this Finance bill. In constituencies like Bridgwater where SMEs are key to local prosperity, the government has imposed a huge national insurance hike that makes it more expensive to employ people. This rise, which breaks Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise national insurance will cost SMEs £732 more per year for every employee earning £20,000. This tax on jobs. Full growth and lead to higher unemployment. This rise in national insurance is especially damaging to those in the healthcare sector.

And the amendments proposed will help assess the damage that this causes. Last week, representatives from the social

**** Possible New Speaker ****

care... In the interests of complete

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the interests of complete impartiality, can I make sure that all numbers are where they have to be speaking to the amendments as proposed in this Finance bill, not proposed in this Finance bill, not any other amendments they might have wished.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wished. Grateful for your guidance. The members from Bridgwater of the members from Bridgwater of the social care sector were particularly concerned that the National Insurance contribution rise had not Insurance contribution rise had not been subject to an assessment. And therefore assessing the damage that that would do, and indeed the other tax rises is critical to the successful implementation of this Finance bill. Happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my honourable friend for giving way and for his assessment of the Finance bill. Does he agree with me that the best way the government can raise revenue is not to raise taxes but to grow the economy and increase the money taken through taxes in that way? And the National Insurance contributions actually, the increases are delivering the very opposite of what delivering the very opposite of what the government say, not growing the economy at all, but stifling the economy at all, but stifling the economy, which is likely to demand increase in taxes in the future.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful for the intervention. Indeed, combined with the rise in the minimum wage, and Labour's the minimum wage, and Labour's Employment Rights Bill, the contents of this Finance bill do seem to deliberately set out to harm small deliberately set out to harm small businesses. And Labour's plan to introduce inheritance tax on farmers introduce inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses is more evidence if it were needed, that evidence if it were needed, that they don't understand how farms and they don't understand how farms and small businesses work.

Under this government, family farmers with land, buildings and machinery say £5 million will incur IHT of £400,000. When it passes to the next generation. That same farm might produce a return of say 1%. Of £50,000 in an annual average year. So the government is proposing to take all that family's income for the next eight years. And the question for the Minister when he replies, how does she expect that family to live in the meantime? Now Labour's response to our farmers has been to sneer at our rural communities.

The Treasury offered a minister to farming representatives, and then spend that time telling them that their wasn't a problem. This is not as bad for farmers but for rural economies and our nation's food. -- Food security. This Finance bill increases taxes and spending and borrowing. It makes our public sector larger and the private sector smaller. It does exactly the opposite of what is required. If we want a prosperous society, we need to encourage enterprise. We need low & taxes that incentivise people to work hard to invest and to grow their businesses.

This Finance bill does exactly the opposite. And that is why we will oppose it this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evening. There are no further speakers....

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are no further speakers....

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are no further speakers.... Thank you. Can I thank members so far? And indeed to have great enthusiasm for the Finance bill, including the opposition members contribution during that Finance
18:25
Nesil Caliskan Portrait Nesil Caliskan MP (Barking, Labour)
-
-
contribution during that Finance bill, and I thank him for his efforts alongside the Minister at the time over several days as I sat through the Finance bill. I speak in favour of the Finance bill as a member of the committee. And a bill that I recognise that seeks governments mission to turn the page on what was a period of decline for the country. There are several aspects of the bill in particular I would like to focus on, and to begin with, the non-dom status.

Proposals from the government, which I see as a crucial part of our agenda to make sure we're delivering a fair approach to taxation in this country. The non-dom loophole alongside extending the levy on oil and gas companies, and indeed ending the VAT exemption provided to public to private schools through this bill raises the necessary income in order to be able to deliver on what the government is trying to do, watch is a balanced budget that seeks to stabilise the economy and then to grow our economy going forward.

The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

non-dom... Happy to give way. If it turns out that the energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If it turns out that the energy profits levy locked up to even higher levels actually leads to a lower tax take, than would have happened if it were at a lower happened if it were at a lower level, which at that point think that it was a mistake and urge her colleagues to change course, if that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleagues to change course, if that were to prove to be the case? I thank the Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Member for giving way, think ministers have provided assurance of their assessment. They don't believe that will be the case, don't believe that will be the case, but actually it is a rounded approach the government is taking to energy, alongside our commitments around GB Energy and our commitment to see a transfer from more renewable energy going forward will allow there to be a more mission led approach. I take the right honourable members point, but I think the governor has provided assurances there will be constant monitoring, and if changes are required that they would deliver that.

Happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. She will be very aware

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. She will be very aware that there is a mechanism within the government's energy profits levy which will kick in 2030, which is that if energy profits, prices start that if energy profits, prices start to go down, then of course the levy ceases to work. So there is a very intrinsic link between the money intrinsic link between the money that the energy companies pay and energy prices. And would you agree with me that whilst energy prices with me that whilst energy prices have gone up for the third time in a row, and many constituents, all of our constituents are struggling with energy prices, is right to look at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the big oil and gas companies paying their share. And when the prices come down, the levy will stop. The principle of being able to use a mechanism to intervene in a market that isn't working I absolutely support. And I think the government's approach is right. government's approach is right. There is an immediate issue with high pricing certainly, but the high pricing certainly, but the truth is the government has to be able to take decisions for the long run. And so as I alluded to earlier, run.

And so as I alluded to earlier, I'm conscious that also the Speaker may intervene in terms of me focusing on clauses, but as I alluded to earlier, I think long- alluded to earlier, I think long- term approach to making sure we have a just transition that sees that energy is stabilised for people across the country on a long-term basis is really important. I'm going to make a bit of progress and then I'm happy to give way to the member. So I think the government's approach to energy levies is the right one.

I think I will focus on particular maintaining particular clauses around VAT, on private schools is important. And also as I've said, the non-dom status is crucial. Happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Great. I just wanted to briefly go back to what she was saying about the energy profits levy and stability. The energy property -- stability. The energy property -- profits levy is expecting to cause huge amounts of instability for North Sea firms, driving business away from the North Sea to put their away from the North Sea to put their investments abroad. Does that sound like stability? And if it is, is that the kind of stability that will bring lower prices and employment and economic growth to the country? It doesn't really sound like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It doesn't really sound like stability or the investment environment we are looking for. I think the government's commitment around investment three whether it's the wealth fund or private sector combination of GB Energy does in the long term bring stability to the sector. The truth is there is an energy crisis that is affecting my constituents and people across the country, and in this moment, efforts have to be taken to make sure we do everything we can to bring those prices down, that people are experiencing in their bills from are experiencing in their bills from Politics is full of choices.

The government has to balance the books. They have to take the decision to make sure we close what is a black hole. And so the choice is that the government has made feel like the fairest of choices. And a long-term commitment to making sure that we have stability in the energy markets is the correct approach, whilst making sure that people who need help right now can benefit from that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to support the government's position on the Finance Bill.

I think it is a bill that sets out the right choices as I have said. And it is the first important step to making sure that the country is back on the road to recovery after a dark dark period where people were impacted not just through an economic crash but their day-to-day living to a cost-of-living crisis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I would like to speak on you clauses 7 and eight. As the MP for Wimbledon I'm proud to present a constituency that is diverse, with fantastic that is diverse, with fantastic primary and secondary schools in the independent and state sectors. Recent government decisions to Recent government decisions to increase employers NI contributions in all schools, the removal of business rates relief, the business rates relief, the imposition of VAT on school fees at independent schools have put many to
18:31
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
independent schools have put many to the brink. The changes to independent schools has been raised as a concern in my constituency. The over 1000 signatories I have received on a petition discussed and debated in Westminster Hall today. It is my and my parties believe that as liberals, education should not be taxed, and people should be able to freely make choices on how their children are educated. The state offering of schools, if it is so high that no parent feels compelled to send their children to independent schools.

But these ideologically driven policies of tax on education are not the solution. Putting further strain on the state sector and financially hurting those who believe they are making the best choice for the child. A piece of red meat to show the red flag is still fluttering on the benches opposite. Admittedly the long term impact of this on schools is still to be seen. But the early signs are not good. This academic year, have already seen a drop in people's at independent schools of 10,000, three times higher than the government estimated.

Many believe this will not be a one-off event. And start a longer period with more pupils expected to leave independent schools in the coming years making any financial gains illusory. It is important to see that the cost per pupil is likely to be larger than the national average because of the sheer number of students in the independent sector with special educational needs. The Independent Schools Council estimates there are over 130,000 pupils in independent schools with special educational needs, 90,000 receiving SEND with no EHCP.

Even in Wimbledon high school, and others, they do a huge amount to support children with and many parents send their children there for that reason alone. I spoken to many parents who have made tough financial sacrifices to send their children to the school. And long waiting lists to receive an EHCP. This change is forcing many to reconsider their decision, and they can no longer afford to use the private sector to relieve pressure on the state system. There are huge issues around SEND support, in state schools, with many pupils waiting years for support, and many schools with budget constraints unable to provide the support they would like.

At a time when government and local council are already struggling to support schools, this is putting further strain on state schools. These decisions are doing the opposite. Turning to new clause 8, may I draw the attention of the house to my entry in the register. I would like to speak specifically on the impact this will have on the wine industry, the night-time economy, and hospitality in general. Under the current rules, 85% of all wine sold in the UK is subject to the same rules.

With the alcohol duties set to be linked to the volume of alcohol and a bottle of wine that will be replaced by 30 different rates of duty. I understand why the government is doing this, but it is simply not workable in the context of wine. It fails to account for the fundamental difference between wine and other or manufactured drinks. The ADV of white cannot be predicted with precision in the winemaking process. And the ADV varies between different years and different levels, and until bottling we do not know the ADV of the bottle.

So it leads to huge uncertainty about price and profit margins for the industry. There are different rates depending on the specific APV. It is particularly important with low-cost wines that this regime is utterly impractical for wine producers and wine merchants. Harold Wilson, the co-founder of the wine merchants told me, he said "In my business this feels like death by 1000 cuts. Or even 2000 cuts. We sell over 2000 wines each year, the fact that we have to know the precise ABV of each one, and there is a different level of tax to be paid for each one.

I wrote to the Minister about this and received along response which I'm grateful. He made the point that HMRC would change practice and sets the ABV on the bottle to the nearest 0.5%. That is current practice, but it is still far too complex, and secondly, he fundamentally misunderstand why people drink wine. It is consumed primarily for taste nor strength. The ABV affects the taste profile. It is all about taste, it is not about whether it is stronger and someone can get more drunk.

It is not how people consume wine. Turning briefly to hospitality, and the night-time economy, the industry is facing an extension crisis owing to the cost- of-living crisis, rising energy prices, inflation, labour shortages, changes to working patterns and the doubling of business rates. Now alcohol duties are to be yet another burden. Every cost makes survival more difficult. This shows the government is still not taking the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dangers seriously. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Is it the end? No. It has been a real pleasure to speak in this real pleasure to speak in this debate and thank you for calling me so soon, I'm just getting us so soon, I'm just getting us prepared. It is an opportunity to speak in the Finance Bill for one speak in the Finance Bill for one last time. I spoken every time it has come up and I'm pleased to do so has come up and I'm pleased to do so again.

Within this Finance Bill, it was stated in the contribution which was helpful to set the tone, and the
18:38
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
level for this debate and the issues that are important. And he referred to the legacy of small and farms by to the legacy of small and farms by the inheritance tax changes, and every opportunity until government understands the impact with farmers understands the impact with farmers selling their land and their future selling their land and their future to pay. I'm sad to say to the Minister will be asked for the threshold to be upheld and threshold to be upheld and increased, with the threshold was increased it would help many farms find themselves outside of being penalised.

When government has an urgent need for food security, this decision I believe beggars belief. If government is aiming for those abusing the system, they should design a scheme for them. Not a scheme which affects 70% of farms in Northern Ireland and many other farms across the UK. The other major concern is of course that of the NI contributions, with GP clinics and health centres being the latest to suggest this. Less capacity, less response to the patient's simply because it is all done with the constraints of the National Insurance Contributions.

This must not be the case. I support the opposition's new clause two in relation to energy oil and, and the Shadow Minister outlined this well. Our party will be supporting the amendment if it is pushed. In relation to the new clause 8, the honourable Lady who spoke for the Lib Dems earlier on referred to the business sectors and I put the case forward for the Irish whiskey trades. They have been clear when I met them before Christmas that this will impact upon them greatly.

They are already under pressure and I must say, whiskey organisations and trade, they export most of their whiskeys to try and make their money. The fact the matter is they find it extremely difficult to do that. If they are taxed heavier it will lead to job losses and a reduction in what they're able to do. And they do some incredible work for the community. I mentioned three of them in my constituency. These are three organisations that I have known all the time they've had their businesses and concern for how it will impact.

Whenever the honourable Lady pushes this one, we will support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for giving way. He will be aware that there are huge supply chains and some of these distillers are fantastic for attracting people in, the tourism attracting people in, the tourism industry, to create strong local economies us. There is huge economies us. There is huge innovation. Would he agree it is essential the government does not just an impact assessment of how just an impact assessment of how much it costs and what the tax revenue is they look at the operational cost over 12 months before this measure comes in because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before this measure comes in because it will cause havoc? She has put it to think Leanne well and hopefully the Minister is listening to the comments. In relation to how it will impact and the concerns of all of us in relation to this. New clause 4, the noble Lady referred to the impact on the small and medium-sized, and I understand this will not be put to a vote but my party would support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for giving way. Does he share my concern giving way. Does he share my concern that there seems to be disconnecting some of the statements made from the government benches around the impact or lack of impact on small and or lack of impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, and what we hear, as constituency MPs, week after week with family businesses after week with family businesses telling us they have, as a result of telling us they have, as a result of the measures, to reconsider much of the investment and recruitment plans for the coming year?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the coming year? He is right on that. That is what Small and Medium Enterprises are telling myself and many others in telling myself and many others in the chamber. Ultimately, whenever that national insurance put's are passed on, they will be passed on to customers. So who suffers? The people who the Labour Party say they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

represent. But then again they will penalised time and again. I thank the honourable lady at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable lady at four giving way. Does he agree that EPA National Insurance Contribution rises on small and medium-sized businesses not only gets passed on businesses not only gets passed on to the consumer but it is damaging to the economy as well because it stifles growth. And growth is the stifles growth. And growth is the way that you increase tax take for the Treasury, not increasing tax

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rates. He has put it very well. One of my businesses in my constituency employs 1200 people will stop he told me just before the New Year it would cost that firm £1.1 million per year. When I asked him I said, what will you do? He said there are two main things they can do. Number one, they can absorb some of it, or pass it on. So that is what will happen. If you want growth you have to look at what will happen.

I want to look at new clause 7. It is one I used my intervention with the Shadow Minister in relation to private Minister in relation to private I would say this is not designed as help those who are in the wealthy elite. The ones I know, they are not the ones who are driving the roles or who have a massive palatial house. These are people scrimping and saving to make sure they can send their children to the independent based schools.

They are the ones who demand their child has access to a swimming pool although there is nothing wrong with this but parents who can afford to do it, I am not criticising anyone who can do that. My pleas for those small schools of fatal international students who will be swallowed up in the mainstream system. Let me outline one example and I want to do that if I can. At Bangor independent Christian school seek to do, they seek to provide education within the sacrifice of their faith.

Bankers Christian school provide the standard GCSE English and yet the difference is they lobby for a greater selection to focus on books that did not push the boat out in terms of language or relationship scenarios. Parents were and are happy to pay addition towards this education to support this. My Parliamentary agent with history and I'm going to give an example of an incident that happened in my office as well. She give consideration to a private skill, not because she thinks her children are above anybody else but because she had a case come through our office in my constituency with an excerpt from a book which is highly offensive to anyone of numerous faiths, of Hindu faith, Muslim faith, Christian faith, anyone who has a faith.

In the book they are referring to was in the curriculum and the school will use it and not censor that book. No-one asked for the censorship they just ask the child to be removed. And that could not happen in the mainstream school. I have to say their child was, they were concerned the child could be reading books which had pornography without the problems of pornography. In the that person settled for a school because the leaders of the school were Christian and were a welcoming state school.

The fact that the government would penalised those schools with VAT to such an extent those parents and their children will have to consider what the future will be. They have been pushed towards an education system that they are concerned with and they have no protection in that system. Madam Deputy Speaker, government Minister and I say this respectfully, the Minister knows my form and I tend to put things forward in a way, hopefully every member can put things forward in a constructive fashion and try not to be aggressive in the way that I explained my viewpoint.

I understand the role of the schools is imperative to give structure a good education this VAT clauses a potential to push parents towards other schools or to close schools. Those who don't have this desire, has good education is a dangerous environment to provide without help. I concluded this, -- I conclude with this, parents seek to urge government to find a pole for those small faith based schools or for international pupils, where they know their child needs that smaller focused class.

These children I sincerely urge everything. Move the threshold to large schools if that is who are aiming for. Or, for the system that gives the small faith schools a chance to survive. Leave the small and the painfully schools to educate children with a worldview -- paying schools to educate children with a worldview... Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you so much. Thank you. I will crack on with
18:49
Dave Doogan Portrait Dave Doogan MP (Angus and Perthshire Glens, Scottish National Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I will crack on with new clause to as it relates to the government's catastrophic mismanagement of the fiscal regime mismanagement of the fiscal regime regarding Scotland's oil and gas. Just at a time when when Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund touched 1.7 trillion, Scotland is no wealthier now than we were when North Sea oil and gas was discovered in real terms in the 1970s. More than 400 billion has flown from Scottish waters to the Treasury over the years with very little coming back in the other way.

Rather than reverse this trend this Labour Party with its increased EPL is chosen has to accelerate but has chosen to exonerate are windfall tax supposed to be applicable to extra very high profits from high global crises. That level has long since gone. Mutually new PO mixed with the changes to EPL they risk changes to our offshore capability and our ambition to hit net zero. The increase of the extension of EPL is costing the economy £13 billion and this will in turn cost up to 35,000 jobs.

The analysis also shows a reduction of viable capital investment from offshore to onshore... From the period 25 to 29 under the changes the covenant is planning to EPL. This loss of economic value not only impacts the core sector itself but the domestic onshore supply companies, many of whom are in my constituency and many of whom will have a role to play in the just transition. This reflects a political choice by the Labour Party to de-prioritise investment and decarbonisation.

Rather than allow a more valuable decarbonisation relief are solitary and positive byproduct of the tax hike, Labour have ensured there can be absolutely no silver lining to this policy cloud. The simple truth is the UK cannot seem to meet the net zero target create green growth if the Labour Party's policies hack away at both investment and domestic workforces. We need to deliver the energy. It is clear the Labour Party is abandoning Scotland's existing energy sector and in doing so they are putting at risk the just transition in the process.

With these changes to the EPL Labour will have created a worst of all worlds scenario whereby they starve industry of the investment must sacrifice the jobs we need to deliver net zero, put at risk the energy security, they will not bring down energy bills and they will have the economy of Scotland. While failing to invest the money required to truly deliver the benefits we all need to seek from the just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transition. Very happy to give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giveaway. Does the honourable gentleman think there is a real gentleman think there is a real challenge in terms of what the policies of the government is for policies of the government is for encouraging retreatment in the North Sea. Which will bring forward the decommissioning costs which have not decommissioning costs which have not been taken into account by the Treasury and will add billions and billions and billions of pounds of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

billions and billions of pounds of extra cost onto the UK taxpayer? Absolutely correct. Because it does not matter where you look at the fiscal ambitions of the Labour government in relation to North Sea oil and gas and energy more generally it seems to be counter- productive. They are currently introducing a policy which they say has a stated aim. Anybody with the passing understanding of the industry realises it will have precisely the opposite him. -- Opposite aim. They will not listen, much to my regret.

Analysis shows the UK oil and gas sector will peak in 2026 under labours increased to EPL with before declining contrary to the previous scenario which continue to progress over the period. As they expect tax take from UK oil and gas producers to increase and very short-term, ultimately it will result in a 12 million net loss to tax receipts compared to the current regime is implemented. If the Labour Party does not care about the jobs this policy will cost, the harbour will do to the just transition nor the damage to the economy of Scotland, surely they can accept a tax increase which actually reduces the amount of tax received is that the very best counter- productive.

That is why the SNP will be supporting new clause to fit a selected. In private schools, the SNP appreciates the many and varied reasons why parents choose to use them. It is not fair, nor sustainable to treat private schools differently from other discretionary spend for the purposes of VAT. That exemption to private schools cost the UK taxpayer around 1.6 William pounds annually which could be invested in other book services. However the SNP also understands the many parents whose children are enrolled in the schools, the UK government decision to remove that exception from private school's relics -- will be extremely worrying at a difficult time.

The distinctive nature of Scottish education system is under scrutiny -- understood by UK government in this transition and in particular the Scottish government has raised concerns with the UK government about the decision the UK government about the decision to include grand -- grant -related independent schools. As they are not the same in Scotland. There is a clear distension in Scotland between grant paid in special schools and independent schools in the UK government policy regrettably does not reflect that. I know the Minister studiously does not listen to everything I say but it would be good if he has heard that Andy would address it when he comes to summer.

-- And he would address that when he comes to sum up. Lastly and whiskey, tax revenue raised by industry fell by £300 million, that should have been a lesson to any government coming afterwards. The sensible option for both supporting Scotch whiskey and Treasury receipts would have been to cut whiskey duty instead the Labour Party is raising it again. Top of this we have a UK government planning to grant another definition of single malt English producers to that of Scotland single mode.

The definitions were inconsistent... And seeks to terror the well-established dictionary definition of what a single mould is. While pulling the rug from Scotch whiskey. The government must listen to warnings from the industry, the Scottish Government has those from across the political spectrum and scrap these plans and these duty hikes which are an act of sabotage Scotland's world-class industry. It is an industry already facing Drug Tariff switch cost over £600 million in exports the last time these were replied and under the first presidential term rather the first presidential term rather than...

They need to hate duty still further. It is high time Wiseman stuff I listen to organisations like the Scotch Whisky Association and stopped discriminating against Scotland's national drink which supports more than 40,000 jobs and delivers more than £7.1 billion into the London Treasury every year. The SNP will support new clause 8. In summary I have spoken consistently about that which is under debate in this bill and the wider context can be Labour have no plan for reforming their economy. They seek to reduce the deficit and not boost taxes and they want to similar growth with large investment but is impossible to do all of these things all at once and it is astonishing the government seek to persist with this wilful.

They may... To deliver growth in public services but that requires tax increases and deficit spending. Both of which Labour are too scared to pursue because of their shortsighted election policies to abide by fiscal rules and not increase the highest revenue sources. So we are stuck in the worst possible of all worlds. Insufficient growth, especially green growth and investment and deficit causing rising burden and no way meaningfully increasing revenue. UK government bizarrely persisting with gas lighting itself that it is fixing the foundations and delivering growth.

They are doing nothing of the sort and if they stick with this Finance bill that predicates that they never will. Finally isn't it astonishing that when farmers push back on APR and family business pushed back on BPR, family business pushed back on BPR, pensioners pushed back on pension Winter Fuel Allowance. Scottish whiskey pushes back with duty hikes in the North Sea oil and gas the EPL with Waspi women pushing back. The auger told no. It is too bad and the situation is too bad.

You have just got to sector. But when the non-doms pushback they get swept right to the heart of the Treasury of this Chancellor and they get whatever they want. That is your Labour government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I would like to speak in favour of new clause 4, tabled in
18:58
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
in favour of new clause 4, tabled in the name of my honourable friend, the member for St Albans. This amendment if accepted would require the covenant to carry out impact assessment on the changes this legislation would create for small and medium-sized businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, the heart of our local communities and they create the jobs we all rely on. I hear time and time again from the small businesses across my constituency of Richmond Park they are struggling to keep up with soaring energy prices, business rates and the cost of exporting.

The Chancellor is absolutely right to be focused on economic growth. However my liberal Democrat colleagues and I have deeply concerned -- are deeply concerned about the changes this bill on our high streets particularly those in hospitality industry who are very concerned about why years and cider and the duty rises and the impact that will have. The well-being of small businesses act as an indicator the health of the economy as a whole. So as such this amendment would provide a useful tool to understand the broader imprecations of this legislation.

On our economic austerity. More broadly and impact assessment as this amendment would require look at the combined effect of all policies in this bill on small businesses both direct and indirect to ensure SMEs remain at the heart of the government economic policy. It is crucial necessary tough spending decisions to clear up the mess of the last Conservative government left behind do not hit our small local businesses which are so vital to our economy. To encourage growth in our small businesses the Chancellor should be looking to reduce the burden on businesses through means such as cutting Brexit redtape, securing on better trade deals with Europe and entering a customs union.

The combination of the cost of hiring staff, the cost of additional renting and higher business rates simply will be too much for many SMEs to absorb. Which is why I urge the Minister to support our amendment and assess the impact of this legislation on local businesses. I also wish to speak in favour of new clause 7, this new clause would require the government to produce and impact assessment of the effect of the VAT provisions in this bill and pupils who have special educational needs but do not have an Education, Health and Care plan.

The Liberal Democrats do not support imposing VAT on private school fees and we do not support treating independent schools differently to other education providers VAT purposes. It is unnecessary, unfair and counter productive. Almost 100,000 privately educated pupils in the UK have special educational needs. Yet they do not have an EHCP. These children will face significant disruption to their education, as many parents will find they cannot afford the sharply increase. The consequences on this bill will also be a steep rise in demand for local authorities to issue EHCPs and a rapid influx of peoples into the state system.

Local authority resources the Special educational needs and disability's are already stretched to breaking point. Many state schools will struggle to cope with this additional demand. New clause 7 demands transparency and the impact this policy will have across the UK on pupils. This change will have a disproportionate impact on children with SEND which will not just create hardship for those children and their parents but enormous difficulties for the local authorities and state schools that will be required to provide alternative schooling. I urge the government to back this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to take part in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to take part in tonight's debate on the Finance Bill and the amendment and new clauses that have been submitted. This follows several days and this
19:01
Graham Stuart Portrait Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
-
follows several days and this afternoon's remarkable session when the whole house pretty much pretty much came together to congratulate the prime minister on his composure and leadership on Ukraine. And looking forward, the need, as was made clear for us, to rebuild our military capability, out hard power, as this decade goes on if we are to ensure the security of Ukraine but also of Europe including the UK and the wider world. And of course it is in that context that this Finance Bill comes because the only way to deliver that security is by having a strong economy.

It is by having the economic growth which colleagues from across Laos have discussed. And yet this budget is the most growth destructive budget imaginable. And it is worth going back to look at these amendments and new clauses, to the context. After going through the pandemic, after going through the energy crisis, which in some way still continues, the country, thanks to the hard decisions made on the side of the house, though not always leading to popularity, in fact contributing to our electoral disaster in July last year, but I'm proud nonetheless that when that election came, inflation was back on target at 2%.

We were the fastest growing economy in the G7. 4 million additional jobs had been created full stop that was the legacy. And what it needed from the incoming Labour government with an unprecedented majority goodwill to get on and do something was to hold its nerve. To recognise that the key components were put in place for the economic growth that was going to be vital to meet the demands of the NHS, of an ageing population. Indeed of an ever more dangerous one.

Instead what we got from this Labour government was the most disastrous economic suicide note in history. And it is devastating for the popularity of the party opposite, never has such a huge majority been squandered so quickly, and that is why when you look at new clause 1, we look at issues like the tax that will be taken from the state pension. To someone whose only income is the state pension could be paying tax. That is a proposal from the Labour government.

Forget the Winter Fuel Payments being taken away as well. Is that really what members opposite came into here hoping to do? I don't thing they did. Therefore new clause 1 making sure that we look at that, we understand that we look for opportunities to change it is a sensible one. New clause 3 looks at the overall tax impact on households. Again, that surely has to be right. My honourable friend is a very powerful speech at the beginning of this debate and I fully support the point C made.

We have heard powerful speeches from across the house on issues around special educational needs. Again I would say to members opposite, did you get elected to coming here and target children with? There are 100,000 who children with? There are 100,000 who do not have an EHCP. 100,000 who are in the private sector, and they will be forced out with no notice, no time to change and plan. It is a cruel policy. And it is one that the party opposite should be ashamed of.

That is why amendment 67 to 69 focusing on that I fully support. As I do the new clause 7 put forward by the Liberal Democrats and spoken the the honourable lady on their Frontbench. Non-doms, it is ironic, as colleagues have commented on, it seems pensioners, small businesses, farmers, all the domestic interests who might think the government might want to listen, reflect, make some changes to lower the negative impacts. None of them have been listened to in the least.

But non- doms in Davos, the Chancellor has gone off there there is some change non-doms. Let's not let the government off entirely on that because driving out the very rich who bring in a massively disproportionate amount of revenue to us is not a sensible thing to do. If you put equality above all other values, then of course as socialists often do and it was Churchill who said the vice of capitalism is its unequal sharing of blessings. In the virtue of socialism is it equal sharing of misery.

One of the greatest ways of creating more equality is driving all the rich people out, drive the people out to give us jobs and invest and take little from public services but contribute enormously to them. That of course always goes down well with the union backers of the Labour Party. I promised I would not go on for too long. Having said I think I would speak for six minutes and it is now six minutes, it is interesting to note I have not talked about the main topic I was going to touch on, which was the oil and gas.

I really do appeal to the party opposite, putting up taxes on oil and gas in the North Sea so that we see tens of thousands of job losses, we see a loss of engineering and other capacity in this country which is vital to the transition to net zero, we don't, in response to the interaction I had with the honourable Lady earlier, no one expects that we will see the tax take in the coming years go up as a result of this.

The tax take will go down. You can put the rate up to such a level that you actually get a lower tax take and the honourable Member for Angus and spoke powerfully on this. The honourable lady appeared to accept that they would listen. If it turned out this was a shortsighted move. If in fact it just means that we import more oil and gas from abroad which by the way almost always has a higher embedded carbon content than domestic produced oil and gas. If we do that, that does not benefit the environment.

It certainly does not benefit all the jobs that we would have in this country. And it loses us tax revenue. It is truly a crazy policy. I would appeal to members opposite, especially the new members we have at the slickest economist talking earlier, retreading his speech about the fourth time, little realising he was supposed to be focusing on these amendments. But he did it with great good humour. But I would ask him to take his finely honed mind, address these issues, and if the oil and gas policy is as crazy as every expert witness as it is, then he and others should suggest that we should change course.

Your noble Ladies said the government should consider changing course if it did not deliver what it was supposed to deliver and I would ask members opposite to support the members that we put down tonight and to certainly oppose this ridiculous bill. I look forward to hearing from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister. I call the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. At the heart of the Prime Minister is Plan for Change is ambition to
19:09
19:09
19:09
James Murray Portrait James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
fiscal responsibility, and public services being on a firm footing. services being on a firm footing. But this government inherited a challenging and unsustainable set of future spending plans. Plans based on unfunded commitments that are not be shared with the OBR all the British people. No responsible government could have let things government could have let things carry on as they were. That is why at the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor set out the government's plans to set out the government's plans to fix the foundations of the economy and deliver change.

A plan to protect working people, fix public services including the NHS and rebuild Britain. This has meant taking difficult decisions on tax, spending, welfare, repair the public finances and support investment in public services. The government has done this by protecting people's done this by protecting people's payslips. We have also ensured that the UK is one of the best places in the world to grow a business with corporation tax capped at 25% and reforms that will support small businesses in the British high street.

This Finance Bill represents the next step in delivering on the Autumn Budget legislating for several key manifesto commitments supporting businesses to invest and implement the reforms to the tax system. I thank all honourable members for their contributions during this debate. Before I turned the individual amendments I'd like to briefly address some of the points they made. I'd like to thank my honourable friend from Loughborough setting out the importance of growth. And for his thorough analysis of all of the amendments and new clauses in the bill.

I seem to recall, or perhaps that was my honourable friend from Dartford who did go through all of the new clauses and I very much thank him for his contribution, I also thank my honourable friend from barking and I thank her for being on the Finance Bill committee why note she described it as sitting through the Finance Bill committee rather than thoroughly enjoying it. I thank honourable Member's opposite for their contributions to the debate. The Ogbonna before Bridgwater recognised there were a few points he could agree with the Nabil Misawi can.

The honourable member for Wimbledon, he was concerned about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some of his comments... I invite the Minister to explain how the budget would improve the lot how the budget would improve the lot of farmers. In particular the example I gave, the £5 million example I gave, the £5 million family farm would incur an inheritance charge of £400,000. How inheritance charge of £400,000. How will that family pay for it out of an annual income of about £50,000?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is 80 is income with nothing to live on. I think of his intervention. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think of his intervention. This Finance Bill and this debate has to focus on matters which are within the Finance Bill and matters of new clauses and amendments. As you will know and as the previous Deputy Speaker reminded him, he did stray Speaker reminded him, he did stray outside the ambit of the Finance Bill by referring to important changes to Agricultural Property Relief but not once dealt with by this Finance Bill or any new clauses amendments.

I would gently point out that any constituents will see that the income tax on their earnings will not go up as a result of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government keeping its commitment in that regard. I will give way. He is right to point to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is right to point to the amendments in front of us. We have new clause 3 which looks at households specifically. If he is so households specifically. If he is so confident in the measures he is putting forward and put forward by the Chancellor, I won't accept new the Chancellor, I won't accept new clause 3 has an ability to show just how fantastic the budget and financial bill is the evidence base

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we have? I was quite hoping gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was quite hoping gentleman would leap to the defence of Liz Truss as he did last week. As he did last week. I will of course come to the new clauses in a moment. I'm only halfway through thanking people on his side of the house into meaningful so perhaps I can make a bit of progress. The honourable member for Wimbledon spoke about his concerns that it would be unworkable when it ends but it ended over a month ago.

And the early indications are that HMRC have adapted well to the new system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I ask the Minister, has he spoken to people in the wine industry? They are concerned about this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this. I have been in routine contact with people in the wine industry with people in the wine industry despite my time as Secretary of despite my time as Secretary of State. But the end of the wine easement happened at the end of February and our own indications are February and our own indications are that firms and HMRC have adapted well. The honourable Member made a rare early speech in this debate rare early speech in this debate which other took me by surprise.

He raised points with typical grace and forthrightness. I will address some of his point later in my remarks. But about some of the firms to export spirits, and reminding him that duty does not apply to exports. So that part of the legislation would not be relevant for those considerations. The honourable member for Angus and sure spoke about several topics will stop he spoke about the Energy Profits Levy which I will come to shortly. But briefly to underscore the fact that the government is committed to managing the energy transition in a way that supports jobs, and existing and future industries.

GB Energy will be based in Aberdeen. Relation to his question about schooling in Scotland, if I understood it correctly, in line with the approach taken with special schools in the rest of the UK, grant aided special schools in Scotland will remain in scope with the policy. The block grants the Scottish Government provided for fall outside the scope of VAT as are not people specific was the funding paid for individual pupils will be subject to VAT but local authorities can retain and reclaim VAT.

So I hope that goes some way towards answering the questions. The honourable Member has proposed amendments which I will turn to a moment. An the honourable member for Beverley and Holderness, I was enjoy his contributions. I was interested to hear what he has to say because I note that he seems to have developed rather a blind spot when it comes to remembering the inheritance that we had from the previous government which he supported. If I may turn to the amendments the government and the opposition have tabled at report stage, as the Honourable members stage, as the Honourable members will be aware, one measure this bill delivers is our commitment to remove the outdated concept of domicile status from the tax system.

From April 6, 2025 this will be replaced by new residence-based regime ensuring everyone who makes the home in the UK pays their taxes here, with our approach raising an additional 12.7 billion in revenue over the forecast period. The government is clear that a new residence-based regime will be internationally competitive and focus on attracting the best talent and investment to the UK. This was complex legislation and it was the government's expectation that amendments would be required to ensure the drafting lines with the policy intention.

Accordingly we are tabling technical changes and appreciative easement that will Telling First Amendment that look at the new foreign incoming gain regime. The technical revisions to the legislation that will ensure any claims by individuals for relief of foreign incoming games are properly accounted for with access to other forms of tax relief. Further amendments may make changes to the new competitiveness of the new regime by ensuring equal gains trust to those who migrate to the UK and those who do not.

The purpose of relief for those gains. Turning to amendment clause 14 schedule nine which abolishes the basis of taxation from April 6. These amendments make changes to correct references to domicile found in other legislation as well as ensuring the rules around remittances of intangible assets work as intended. In addition these amendments will ensure individuals who have made... For long period will not be taxed with the amounts previously remitted after they resumed the UK residents. Turning to the TRF, these changes were announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in January and they are intended to address specific concerns raised by non-doms and experts about the operation of the TRF.

Together these amendments will ensure the legislation aligns with policy intent and ultimately increase the amount of distrust -- trust distributions that can be allocated by putting specific barriers towards using the TRF. Further amendments address inconsistencies with clause 41 with the effect of making TRF easier to use and ensuring the residence-based regime works as intended. Turning to the amendments in relation of taxation, the foreign incoming gains and arising and settled interested trusts. These changes will ensure legislation functions as intended including by expanding the TRF to cover trust this to's previously expert.

And by incorporating changes based on feedback from external stakeholders. Finally Madam Deputy Speaker, the government is also proposing 11 technical amendments to the new residence-based system for inheritance tax. These changes ensure the new rules work as intended by addressing this act between the new long-term UK residence test and the old inheritance tax rules deemed domicile. For operating within several of the U.K.'s double taxation agreements. The UK government is also tabling several amendments to provide clarification in the treatment of existing excluded property trusts will also relaxing the tests whether the inheritance tax applies.

As a result the property will only need to be offshore immediately before the transfer all the settler state. Rather than being kept offshore until that time. This easement will enable trusts to invest in the UK in the interim and might help them to break the economy. Migrate the economy. As I mentioned in my opening remarks the Finance bill does not also work towards repairing public finances but also looks at investment long-term can regrow. Such investment is essential in clean energy by which the Prime Ministers Plan for Change makes Ministers Plan for Change makes clear we are committed to securing places a global leader.

That is why we are repurposed in oil and gas assets for carbon capture storage by legislating and allowing tax refund payments made into decommissioning. I will move on to, I may perhaps not go into as much depth as I hoped in referring to some of the further amendments as I am getting very well attuned to the subtle signals from my honourable friend. I'm going to make progress$$JOIN... OK one intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gracious if not always in the best of favours with the Whips. Does he expect pensioners who are reliant solely on the state pension to get solely on the state pension to get drawn into tax and the need to drawn into tax and the need to produce a tax return? Has he made an assessment of that? And what can be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done with this? I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. As he will be aware in the coming financial year aware in the coming financial year 25/26, the personal allowances above the level of the new state pension the level of the new state pension so in cases where that someone sole income that should not apply although there are individual cases of pensioners now who already do of tax and around two thirds of pensioners I believe do pay tax because they also have private pensions and they pay via PAYE or self-assessment.

I will not go into detail about the government amendment to the visual effectual relief because I see we have the consent of the whole house to accept them. I may briefly speak to some of the amendments tabled by opposition members as I feel I should address them together. I will take together the new clauses 1, two, three, five, six, and eight. Because these amendments would require the government to review the number of individuals that are receiving the full state pension and income tax liabilities for the next four years.

And to publish various impact assessments to regard impact of changes to the Energy Profits Levy as well as the impact of this bill on households, small and medium- sized enterprises, distilleries, wine producers and the hospitality industry. The government is opposed all of these amendments for the same reason I give a Committee stage. First the relevant information on those receiving state pension and their tax lie abilities is already published by HMRC DWP and the OBR and is publicly available. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. The new clause 8 we have made it explicitly clear we are not just looking for an impact assessment of looking for an impact assessment of the tax the government intends to raise it is about the estimate of administrative operational costs, i.e. Redtape input on the industry. i.e. Redtape input on the industry. What he agree with me we need that legislation and will he meet with me to discuss how we do it? Four

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In relation to the alcohol duty changes and indeed the energy become the impact of those changes have ready been set out in the tax ready been set out in the tax information and impact note which is published in the budgets of the information is already in the public mind. Thirdly information on the impact of households which was also published at the Autumn Budget in the impact on household support which demonstrated households are on average better off in 2526 as a result of these decisions.

I will finally just address the amendments made by the opposition on VAT of private school fees. Many honourable member spoke about the matter. These amendments and Amendment 67 to 69 would collectively remove clauses 47 to 49 which are those which remove the VAT exemption for private schools and set out in due. And provisions and the commencement date. Ending the VAT tax break of private schools is a tough but necessary decision which will secure additional funding needed to help deliver on our commitments including those related to education and young people.

This policy took effect in the begin of January and I note in his speech the shadow Minister did not say how his party would pay for their decision to reintroduce this tax break for private schools. This policy will raise £1.7 billion by the following year of this Parliament and so it is of course essential for the opposition to explain what they would cut from schools budgets from education services or from any other public services to pay for it? I will happily give way if the shadow Minister would like to make an intervention to place on record how he will pay for the reintroduction of this tax break? I do not see him leaning to his feet but leaping to his feet so I will therefore move on.

Finally on VAT on private schools, the debate we are having the government set out at the Autumn Budget the impact of its policy so I do not believe the new clause 7 which would require the government to make a regular statement on the impact of Special educational needs and disability is as necessary. However I would like to take this opportunity to make clear in developing this policy the government carefully considered the impact it would have including on pupils with Special educational needs and disability.

I am sure the honourable member the St Albans to colleagues will welcome the extra £1 billion for hire needs funding next year thanks to our decision on tax policy including on private schools. To conclude I would urge, I hope I have set out why the opposition amendments are unnecessary. Or indeed by reintroducing the VAT tax breaks and private schools not only works counter to the manifesto which the government was elected for but also represents the underfunded tax government and the opposition have they learned nothing? I therefore urge the House to reject these amendments and accept and I commend our amendments to the bill.

I extend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my thanks again to all members for their contributions during this debate. I call the shadow Minister. To windup.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

windup. Is the shadow Minister going to withdraw?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to withdraw new clause 1. Is it the wish of the House new clause 1 be withdrawn? New clause 1 clause 1 be withdrawn? New clause 1 clause 1 be withdrawn? New clause 1 by leave withdrawn. New clause to is being selected for separate decision. I called James Wild to move new clause to formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is new clause to be read a second. As many of that opinion say I. -- As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division! Clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the
19:27
None Portrait Division
-

contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes, Katie law and Gregory Stafford. Tellers for the noes, came

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. The ayes to the right 113. The noes to the left 331.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 331. The ayes to the right 113. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 113. The noes to the left 331. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock. New clause 8 has been selected for separate decision. I call Daisy Cooper to move new clause 8 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that new clause 8 and you read a second time. As many and you read a second time. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Division,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper as many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes. Tellers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Open Open Doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Open Doors. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 176. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 176. The The ayes to the right, 176. The noes The ayes to the right, 176. The noes to the left, 332. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock. With the leave of the House I call the Minister to move government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment one to 17 formally. Moved formally. The question is government amendment one to 17 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Amendment 67 has been selected for separate has been selected for separate decision. I called James Wild to move the amendment formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved formally. The question is amendment 67 be made. As many as are of that made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Tellers of the ayes Katie Lam and Gregory Stafford. Katie Lam and Gregory Stafford. Tellers the noes TMA her and Taiwo Tellers the noes TMA her and Taiwo Owatemi. Mr Kere may the and Taiwo

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. The ayes to the right 167. The noes to the left 347.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 347. The ayes to the right 167. The noes to the left 347. The noes have noes to the left 347. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock. With the leave of the house I called the Minister to move government amendments 18 to 66 formally. The question is that government amendments 18 to 66 be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. The ayes have it. Consideration completed. Third reading. Now. I beg the Minister to move third reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reading. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I beg to move the bill be read 1/3 I beg to move the bill be read 1/3 time. At the Autumn Budget, my right honourable friend the Chancellor the essential foundations for boosting essential foundations for boosting investment and growth, to put more money in people's pockets. The number one mission of this government and to prime ministers Plan for Change. But it was put on robust fiscal rules, rules that put a stop to day-to-day spending being funded for borrowing and to get net
20:13
James Murray Portrait James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
debt falling as a share of GDP. Finance Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments. Removing the manifesto commitments. Removing the outdated concept of domicile status, outdated concept of domicile status, increasing the tax rate for carried interest, increasing high rates of stamp duty for additional dwellings. stamp duty for additional dwellings. Introducing 20% rate of VAT for private school fees and changing the Energy Profits Levy by extending the Energy Profits Levy by extending the period over which the plight and adjusting its rate by 3%.

As we know, the Chancellor set out the know, the Chancellor set out the budget the fiscal inheritance was far worse than we had expected. The opposition when in government let public spending plans become unsustainable. We do not share this with the OBR British people and it fell to us to fix the mess we took office. That is why we had to make an increase to the Capital Gains Tax, changes to inheritance tax thresholds and we have done a plan to close the tax gap by a record amount of tax revenue by the end of the Parliament.

I would like to thank members from across the house for their often helpful and insightful contributions to the debates of this bill during its passage. I'd like to thank officials at the Treasury and in Parliament there work on the policies and legislation that led to the bill and its consideration. This bill is a vital role in delivering economic stability, repairing public finances are laying the essential foundations for growth. It is true that growth that we will put more money into the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pockets of people across Britain. I commend it to the house. The question is that the bill be
20:14
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be Thank you. I join in thanking honourable members on both sides of honourable members on both sides of the House who participated in the debate we have had so far in the debate we have had so far in the bill which I do not tend just like intend to extend unduly. I thank the Parliamentary staff, the faculty and honourable members who chaired the committee. Madam Deputy Speaker, the driving mission of this government driving mission of this government according to the Prime Minister's growth and despite inheriting the fastest-growing economy in the G7 he and the Chancellor chose to talk and the Chancellor chose to talk down our economy.

The impact in their words was to weaken confidence. Then in the October budget the government made choices and put in place a raft of measures that amongst this have stop the growth of stone dead. £40 million period extra taxes, higher national insurance, increasing tax on investors, deterring the risktakers and the wealth creators that we need pushing up inflation, hitting working people and pensioners. In just the last two days senior business leaders from retail, hospitality sectors have warned the damage this budget and Labour's costly employment laws will have.

They are just the latest businesses sounding the alarm. The Chancellor is not listening. For all the talk of growth what we can already see from this government and their actions as we have a government committed to higher taxes, higher spending, more borrowing and more regulation. The classic Labour approach and it does not work. The government needs to change course, otherwise we will all pay the price. That is why we will not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting this bill tonight. The question is the Bill be now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the Bill be now read 1/3 time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the
20:16
20:29
None Portrait Remaining Orders of the Day
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes have it. Motion number three. On police. Minister to move. I beg to move. 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. I now go on to motion number four, delegated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation. Minister to move. Moved formally. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I now go on to motion number five on Committee on Standards. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Standards. Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I now go on to motion number six, Committee of Privileges. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Privileges. Minister to move. I beg to move. 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. I now go on to motion number seven. Relating to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Backbench Business Committee Jessica Morden. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes have it. I now go on to motion number eight on the Environmental Audit Committee for. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye" full stock Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it forced The ayes have it. I now go on to motion number nine relating to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

petitions. I beg to move. 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. Finally be coming to motion and potentials of Statutory Instruments the Joint

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee for Minister. I beg to move. Four The question is as on the Order Paper. -- The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". I now come onto Public Petitions.
20:31
None Portrait Petition
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public Petitions. Thank you. Further to a similar online petition approaching 1,000 signatures I am presenting this petition of over 100 constituents for Noss Mayo who rely on Newton for Noss Mayo who rely on Newton Ferrers Pharmacy run and owned. Due to threat of soaring costs of out of date NHS contract my constituents are concerned about the future of this vital pharmacy. To House of Commons the petitioners of the residents of South West Devon declared the pharmacy is causing significant consent the local community, further declares the pressures placed on local pharmacies include inadequate funding, rising operating costs, difficulty in recruiting and retaining community pharmacists and the recent rise in NICs for employers which is expected to cost pharmacies an additional £50 million.

These closures have led to increased pressure on GP surgeries and hospitals as patients are forced to seek alternative care packages. It acknowledges the vital role pharmacy and community pharmacies play in providing accessible, convenient and affordable healthcare to constituents. The should be to constituents. The should be to constituents. The should be Request the House of Commons to take urgent action regarding community pharmacies including assessing the adequacy of funding in this area, providing support to reduce operating costs, addressing the impact of national insurance rises and improving workforce retention strategies in the lead up to the renegotiation of community pharmacy tract or framework and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition. Potential closure of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Newton Ferris pharmacy. I beg to move this House do now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. The question is this House do now adjourn full stop I call Luke Myer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn full stop I call Luke Myer. I declare my role on the Ecclesiastical Committee. I'm
20:33
None Portrait Adjournment: Safeguarding in the Church of England
-

Ecclesiastical Committee. I'm To discuss a serious matter, one of importance to our constituents, to the Church of England, and most importantly to the victims and survivors of abuse. I'm grateful to all honourable and right honourable members who are here on behalf of their constituents. As a member of this place and as a Christian who believes in the church and the positive, powerful role it can play in our community, I believe that the stories of survivors and their calls for change must be heard.

Here today and by the general sign out -- Synod of the Church. That means for those here the chamber and in The Gallery and watching at home it is important to note this debate may include difficult matters. I trust this will be a measured debate. This is a sensitive topic and I know that members on all sides want to advance the interests of those who have suffered abuse within the church. My constituent will be known to members across the House for her campaigning on abuse of many kinds.

She served as the survivor advocate on the Church of England's Independent safeguarding Board. In this role she worked closely with survivors, some of whom are joining us today. My team and I have worked with her since my election last year. Along with her colleague Steve Reeves she advocated for survivors by escalating their cases for review. Challenging processes and pushing for justice. I commend her and her work. In preparation for this debate I met with members of the group of survivors involved with the Independent safeguarding Board sample cases, they call themselves the ISP 11.

I've heard stories that I will never forget. What struck me most is that they see themselves not only are survivors of the initial abuse they received but also survivors of the church a safeguarding process. A process which has forced these brave and can courageous people who have stood up to power to relive, lengthen and even amplify the abuse have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

received. I thank him for giving way and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way and for the way he is laying out this for the way he is laying out this debate. Does he agree with me that independent safeguarding is independent safeguarding is absolutely paramount? As my honourable friend was saying, honourable friend was saying, survivors of this abuse have had to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relive it over and over again, but also an establishment where you are foot supposed to feel the most safe. I couldn't agree more, this is the crowd my crux of the speech which I will turn to. It is essential the victims and survivors are heard and I'm very grateful to the Minister and indeed to the second Church Estates Commissioner is well, both of whom are leaders in these matters for being here to hear the stories and respond as well. Mr X who was the first and only survivor to have an ISP case review published.

Throughout his life, Mr X has sought justice after he was abused by three individuals in the church was the he ended up having his business and livelihood destroyed by civil litigation and has yet to see justice will stop another survivor, I will give way just a moment, another survivor told me of an ongoing decade-long fight for justice with West Midlands police commenting on the case that it doesn't normally take 20 years for a complaint to be investigated. Another survivor, a woman who wishes to make -- remain anonymous, told me she now has a heart monitor because of her severe panic attacks.

She told me and I quote, the priest that abused me still lives in my area. The community has ostracised me and I am now housebound. I want the truth to come out. Jaz and Steve have supported me the best they can, at one point we talked every week. If they had not been there I think I would have taken my life. Another survivor has told me that he feels like previous recommendations have fallen on deaf ears. With steps to protect arbitrators rather than to support victims.

Perhaps most harrowing the of all, one of the ISP 11 who is just over 18 years old having initially suffered abuse at the age of eight is still fighting for justice. At such a young age he has already been waiting for over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

half his life to see justice. I will give way in just a moment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way in just a moment, I have no doubt that there are many I have no doubt that there are many members across this how who have had similar stories. I will give way to the honourable lady and young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gentleman full stop I would like to thank the honourable member for bringing forward this really important debate and for setting out what has and for setting out what has happened in such measured terms. Mr X who he has mentioned is actually a constituent of mine. I spoke to him constituent of mine. I spoke to him this afternoon and he described to me the catalogue of betrayals that he has been subject to from the age of 12 through to now at the age of 56, initially through that abuse, but actually through the subsequent failings by the Church of England.

I would like to thank my constituent for retelling his story to me, that's the 28th time he's had to retail the story to a stranger. And for sticking his neck out to try and get change. He told me he has lost the ability to walk away from this, so does the honourable member agree with me that it's only through getting meaningful accountability from the Church of England that he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will get justice? I absolutely agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree with the honourable member and hearing Mr X is case and reading the report that is case and reading the report that was published it is stark, the experiences that he went through. Of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experiences that he went through. Of course he is one of the ISP 11, there are many others as well. They all must see justice. Can I commend the honourable gentleman for Middlesbrough for bringing this forward, I spoke to him beforehand, I suppose like him beforehand, I suppose like others I seek the same levels of legality wherever it may be. Does he not agree that the Church of England and indeed all charitable bodies must be subject to the law of the land in exactly the same manner? Whether religious or nonreligious, and those who are working with vulnerable adults or children should have training and background searches done as much as for a church all -- church hall as for the local community hall? And safeguarding has to be the same standard right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Northern Ireland. Justice is what we are after. I absolutely agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree with the honourable gentleman and the pointy honourable gentleman and the pointy races remind me of a line from the second Alexis J report. I spoke to second Alexis J report. I spoke to her the weekend and it's something she reiterated to me that church safeguarding service. I the standards for consistency expected and set in secular organisations, and set in secular organisations, whether they be local authorities or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anything else. I thank my honourable friend for giving way and he is making a very powerful case. He is right to say that many constituencies have been affected by this and members will have constituents who have suffered abuse through a place where they should have felt very safe, is the same in my situation a constituent contested me I contacted me participating in football activities, experienced abuse as a young child and it has affected the whole of his life.

His mental health has been shredded and lack of accountability, the lack of seriousness, the slow pace from the Church of England in taking these cases seriously and giving people the justice they feel is necessary, and now we are in a situation where the church just doesn't seem to be catching up with the expectations in society and the kinds of safeguarding the happens in every other institution and organisation that works with young people and vulnerable people. Does he agree with me the church really has to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pull its socks up and get its act together if it's to restore the faith this country should have in this most honours of institutions? I completely agree with my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with my honourable friend, she is a real honourable friend, she is a real champion for her constituents, all of her constituents and sadly the case she has outlined is all too familiar with many other cases familiar with many other cases across the country. We are it to the survivors and others who have endured physical, emotional and endured physical, emotional and To highlight the serious shortcomings in the church safeguarding structures. Too often while instances of abuse may have lasted moment the churches processes were investigating and reviewing these cases have been painfully slow, frustrated and needlessly complex.

It cannot be right that the systems intended to support survivors often further traumatise them. I also have been told stories of those who tragically have taken their own lives knowing their perpetrators will never space justice. Survivors tell me feeling trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of uncertainty and distress. One told me that they will not feel fully comfortable while this issue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is and I quote, kept within the walls of the church. Thank you for giving way, I appreciate his efforts in getting appreciate his efforts in getting this debate held. I raised the issue before in this House about the possibility of the Church of England possibility of the Church of England being accountable to the public through, being subject to the through, being subject to the strictures of the Freedom of strictures of the Freedom of Information Act and was advised that this was unsuitable because it technically is not a public body and technically is not a public body and yet it is an institution and part of the fabric of this country.

For people who use that institution and revere it, to find that they are not safe in that institution and instead that institution protects its own, protects perpetrators and finds itself in the situation where, finds itself with people right at the top of the organisation using the excuse of legal constructions or institutional formations to justify not pursuing these situations, that is unconscionable. Words my right honourable friend agree that we need to, as legislators, argue for greater transparent see for the Church of England like the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable member said about other public bodies? Before he goes back to his seat I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before he goes back to his seat I can see this is an important debate but interventions must be short. I complete the agree with my honourable friend, she has a long honourable friend, she has a long career of holding public powerful people to account in many different people to account in many different ways, as she outlines is the case of an institution where it is very difficult to get accountability and difficult to get accountability and transparency. I am glad we have this forum today to discuss these issues, forum today to discuss these issues, but Parliament itself is limited in the ways we can hold the church to account.

I sit on the Ecclesiastical Committee and we have to wait for measures to come forward from Synod to be approved. There is some discussion as to whether that committee ought to have greater powers told the church to account. The broader point is the same as the one the honourable gentleman made which is that the church. Oh the standards required of other organisations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really grateful for him not only bringing forward this debate but the nature and the way that he is bringing forward the debate. Does is bringing forward the debate. Does he agree with me that the technical nuances which caused the Church of nuances which caused the Church of England to go for option three not option for could be overcome by the option for could be overcome by the fact of formulating a process of accountability around the safeguarding structures within the Church of England to ensure that any Church of England to ensure that any provider of such services did have a strong line of communication to hear what is needed in places like York where we've got a cathedral which I understand is where some of the challenges are coming from?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do agree with my noble friend, there are various issues raised one was around the Charity commission and I've discussed this precise and I've discussed this precise issue with professors and decide you that there is nothing in this that that there is nothing in this that cannot be resolved. I understand the Charity commission have taken a direct interest in safeguarding at the moment and I hope an arrangement the moment and I hope an arrangement can be made on that point. The point he makes is right that there are two many blockers here culturally and in many blockers here culturally and in terms of technical detail and what the charity to do is move forward the charity to do is move forward with pace and make sure victims and It's our responsibility in this House to do all we can to urge the church to access these failures are addressed as survivors voices are heard and this ensure that meaningful effective reforms permitted.

We touched on one of the main reforms early and I will come to that in a moment. But before I do, let me be clear, I have the utmost respect for local clergy up and down the country. Who are doing so much work within our communities, and so too do I respect the laity, and so too do I respect the laity, from the local wardens to the safeguarding offices, they too are let down by systemic failure and many of them are crying out for systemic change.

In fact it's my understanding that the sample carried up the Church's response group to the J report not only finds that survivor support the recommendations but so too do the majority of local clergy. I also wish to recognise the work of many members. In particular who presented the dioceses in Europe and was a powerful ally of victims and survivors. He sadly passed away just last month, and I know that survivors truly value his efforts and contribution to their cause. And also my own constituent father Adam Gaunt of Loftus who has helped me understand structures of sin order and is working on the abuse redress

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scheme as well. I will give way. Thanked the honourable gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanked the honourable gentleman. He is making a powerful speech. Speaking as a member of the Church Speaking as a member of the Church of England and someone who has served as... On parochial church councils and as a churchwarden, I councils and as a churchwarden, I recognise that how important it is that we actually move forward, but that we actually move forward, but in order to do that, and he mentioned moving forward a moment mentioned moving forward a moment ago.

Is it not the leadership of the church that has got to take a lead on this? And I say this with the second Church Estates Commissioner listening to the debate. Surely the sooner we have a new Archbishop of Canterbury who could lead the church and hopefully provide dynamic leadership for that institution, only then can we actually the Church

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of England actually move forward. I thank him for that intervention, and what I would say intervention, and what I would say to him is that as I was in a moment, the church has been making various the church has been making various decisions on this, but has not been moving forward at the pace that is required. And my intention in bringing forward this debate is to shine a light on that and urge them to act with pace. But I thank him to act with pace.

But I thank him for making that point. I've listed various individuals and groups various individuals and groups within the church, and my intention with this debate is not to diminish or tarnish any of their contributions but the highlight how processes have not functioned, how survivors have been let down and what we can do as a House to encourage the church to implement better structures. The journey of safeguarding reform in the church is long and complex. It runs from the , the establishment of the National safeguarding panel, national safeguarding team in 2014, 2015, the stable review in 2018, the SEIU report in 2019, the Chichester investigation in 2019, it's a --! The further Alexis Jay report in 2024 and among others.

We have had plenty of reports, but while some improvements have been made, there remains systemic underlying vulnerabilities arising from the Church's structure of safeguarding. Survivors have told me that there are complex hard to navigate structures and slow institutional defensive responses. And what emerged from around 2020 was a call for an independent structure to oversee safeguarding practices. Archbishop's council debated what this should look like, whether to create fully independent body or to establish a board for oversight of safeguarding, which would develop further independence.

This is the ISP which was established in 2021. There were problems which affected the ISP as the Wilkinson review explored, but its work was important. It built trust with victims and survivors. In fact, Mr X told me that he was initially sceptical of the ISP when it was set up and said that he went on to provide an array of hope for the provide an array of hope for the For 2022 and started reviewing cases and making recommendations with the first published in November of that year, but as Wilkinson found, there was a lack of trust between the ISP and the churches safeguarding structures concerning how recommendations should be implemented.

As issues escalated, ultimately in June 2023, the board members were sacked and the board disbanded. Wilkinson found that, " No risk assessment beyond informal conversations was carried out by or on behalf of the Archbishop's council members about the effect of this decision. On victims and survivors who engaged with them, particularly those involved in case reviews." And it showed lamentably little trauma informed regard for the vulnerability of the individuals with whom the ISP was working. I've heard from some of the 11 survivors who suffered mental distress after this decision.

Three landed in emergency mental services. To developed serious suicidal thoughts. Mr X called it an obliteration of hope. The treatment of survivors here is itself a serious safeguarding failure. It is clear that the Secretary-General of the Archbishop's council has questions to answer on this. Around this time of the dissolution of the ISP, Professor Jay was invited to provide recommendations on the way forward. Professor Jay's report said the only way in which safeguarding can be improved is by making it truly independent of the church.

The central problem is that the complexity of the church means that rather than one approach, there are 42 different dioceses, each with different safeguarding systems. Safeguarding practitioners have said this limits effective safeguarding. As Professor Jay noted in her report, church safeguarding service falls below the standards of consistency expected and set in secular organisations, and as Lesley, the independent co-chair for the response group said, this level of complexity is incomprehensible and counter-productive and is one of the ways you are losing the trust of the nation.

It creates a patchwork of different approaches. Some dioceses do implement robust safeguarding practices, some have Independent Sexual Violence Advisors. The dioceses of Newcastle has four permanent staff members with key safeguarding roles, including a caseworker and a training lead. And like to pay tribute to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Newcastle his leadership on this issue has been commendable. I met her last year to discuss these matters and she has much support in the country and I'm sure in the House as well.

Other dioceses however lack such competitive systems, often relying on bringing in external consultants. It is simply not acceptable that the experience of survivors should vary depending on where they live. There must be a system that is unified and consistent, evenly resourced with the same quality of support, respecting the independent expertise of safeguarding professionals. Professor Jay recommended the creation of two separate charities, one for independent operational safeguarding and one for independent scrutiny of safeguarding. It is this issue which went before General issue which went before General Synod last month.

But while he voted in favour of the scrutiny body, only backed the principle of an independent operations body. That is deeply disappointing. A two-stage approach for an issue of such urgency when survivors have already waited decades, moving from one system to another with no sign of any meaningful resolution. With one survivor telling me that he first reported his abuse over 40 years ago. Any further delay in delivering justice to survivors is simply unacceptable. I do not wish to be misunderstood. The agreement of Synod to affirm its commitment to greater independence is an important step, but the decision on operations did not follow the recommendation from Professor Jay and many other specialists and professionals, nor the preference of many survivors.

I believe that more delay will simply confirm survivors view that the church is kicking the can down the road. And having spoken to some members, identity this is the intention, but the reality is that as things stand, this patchwork of procedures remains, and the church remains effectively marking its own homework. This is clearly not acceptable. We will hear from the Minister shortly, and it's a welcome step that earlier this year government agreed to implement Professor Jay's X are recommendations on abuse.

And that makes it all the more pressing that the recommendations for the church be limited too. As Mr X said to me, this is a critical point for the church. To close, Scripture teaches us to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. The church ought to be a place of refuge, of grace, of trust. And yet for far too many, it has been a place of harm. We have seen apologies, reports, reviews, and yet survivors still tell us that they are unheard.

That they are ignored. That they are left to fight alone for basic justice. That must change. The churches safeguarding structures must be independent, transparent and accountable. The days of marking its own homework must end. Survivors must not just be consulted but placed at the heart of reform. And let us be absolutely clear, protecting the rate? Reputation of an institution must never come before protecting the safety of a before protecting the safety of a person. The test of faith is not in the easy minutes but in the heart, and the hard man is this, trust in the church will only be restored when every member is met with compassion, justice and meaningful action.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. For allowing me to speak in today's debate. In my capacity as the second Church Estates Commissioner. I like to begin by firstly congratulating my begin by firstly congratulating my honourable friend the Minister for
20:57
Marsha De Cordova Portrait Marsha De Cordova MP (Battersea, Labour)
-
-
honourable friend the Minister for Middlesbrough's, and the Member for securing an important debate, the most important issue but also the way he so eloquently set out the issue, what the challenges are and what actions and next steps need to be taken. I share his desire to see survivors of abuse treated justly. With dignity and respect. And for those perpetrators to be fully held to account. Like him, I look forward to a time when all of us have our confidence fully restored in the Church of England's safeguarding practices.

When I was appointed second Church Estates Commissioner last October, I could not have foreseen the storm was about to engulf the church. Since the publication of the review that exposed the devastating abuse inflicted by John Smyth, MPs, including myself have received correspondence from constituents, from their local clergy, from victims and survivors. And indeed, we've also heard in this debate here this evening from many members from across the House on the many challenges that this has placed on them.

And rightly, they have expressed their concern about the historic and ongoing failures to keep people safe in the church. The one place that anybody would expect would be a place of safety and sanctuary. They also expressed concern about who, what looks like to be a lack of consistency and transparency in the churches approach to safeguarding and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disclosures of abuse. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. One of my constituents giving way. One of my constituents told me how they couldn't go back and tell their parents what was and tell their parents what was happening to them because it was the church, a place of sanctuary where they were supposed to be safe, and then to find out that those at the head of the church would move abusers to another church instead of moving them out the church and in jail was just another insult to jail was just another insult to injury.

Does my honourable friend agree with me that this needs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stop now? She would not be surprised to hear that I absolutely 100% agree hear that I absolutely 100% agree with what she is saying. These with what she is saying. These failures are not new. As my honourable friend has only highlighted, before the Macon review, there was the independent enquiry into child sex abuse, and over the past nine years there has over the past nine years there has been multiple reviews into safeguarding abuses in the Church of safeguarding abuses in the Church of England.

Multiple reviews with Or the have been some positive steps or changes in I want to commend those who have been working, for the work they have been doing, many in our local parish and dioceses around the country they have all been working incredibly hard, but I think we can all collectively agree that more is needed to be done. Victims and survivors have been waiting too long and we have come to a point where both Parliament and the public need to see the church fully committed to change.

We have to make sure that safeguarding is transparent, it is accountable, consistent in its approach to disclosures of abuse and trust it by the public congregations clergy and most importantly victims and survivors. That is why at the General Synod in February during my Maiden speech I made clear my support for the church safeguarding and operations to be wholly independent of the church. Indeed this was the approach that was put forward by the Church's leadership for safeguarding Joanna Grenfell and this was known as model for.

This approach would have created an independent safeguarding operation and independent complaints process, independent scrutiny function and independent audits. This approach was also supported by Professor Alexis J who was the author of the future safeguarding report. Known as the J review. This view was also shared by local clergy in my constituency of Battersea, where they made clear to me that while they are getting on with the day- to-day work of serving and supporting their local community at the frontline, doing the church's work, they want to see the church as an institution show some humility.

Like me, they do not think the church should mark its own homework. Therefore it was a huge disappointment to me that Synod chose not to back a wholly independent model of safeguarding. Instead they opted for the creation of an external scrutiny body to examine the church safeguarding practices, this was known as model three. It will see the transfer most of the functions currently delivered by the Church's national safeguarding team of policy developed into an external employer. Whilst model three does include looking at looking around some of the practicalities of creating a fully independent safeguarding body to take on all of the church safeguarding work, in my opinion I do not believe that was the approach that needed to be taken as I've already outlined.

But it is vital that this work is taken up with urgency and at pace, at present there are no clear deadlines, there is no clear plan taking network forward and that is something that I believe we need to see. If it is to really give victims and survivors and the public hope that the church is really going to transform its approach to safeguarding and the safety of those who are part of it. It was right that the Synod voted to lament and repent of its failures in the church, welcoming victims and survivors who have experienced and continue to experience this in the life of the church, but we need to remember that keeping people safe and ensuring accountability is the best way to honour victims and survivors of abuse.

There are some who are probably watching here, there may be some who are also here in person. They will be listening to this debate today, and they will know better than any other us that there are still a long way to go. The church must treat its work for independent safeguarding operations as a matter of urgency. We need no more blocking, we just need action. Because action really will speak louder than any of the words that any of us have got to say here today.

I'm grateful to the honourable member for Middlesbrough and East Cleveland for his commitment to seeing this change come through and really he should be commended for being relentless in ensuring that this place had the opportunity to debate this issue. This is probably one of the first adjournment debates on an issue that affects the church and so important the many members have also chosen to be in this chamber and contribute to what is such an important issue. As I said when the making report was published in November last year this has to be a watershed moment for the church to both transform its culture and its safeguarding structures.

Because unless this happens, what will happen to the church many of us here are Christians and followers of Jesus and we want to see the church change. The churches that a bigger voice for the voiceless, many of us know that therefore I hope I will not find myself here again repeating the sentiment in a year or even in two years time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you so much, I would like to thank my noble friend for giving to thank my noble friend for giving way briefly, the point we are talking about here is not just about changing structures changing safeguarding attitudes and culture but arguably changing structures. While there is power being held by a While there is power being held by a small number of people who are refusing to let go of that power it is becoming increasingly visible that it is impossible to change that that it is impossible to change that culture, so basically the structures of the church themselves need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change. Again I thank my noble friend for her intervention, she has also been using her voice to speak up on this issue. But we need to focus on the matter at hand and I think safeguarding in the Church of England is something that we have seen from the review but also all the previous reviews and recommendations have been made, change doesn't happen now, if not now my question really is, then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when? Following my honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Following my honourable friend the Member for Battersea can I thank her for her that powerful speech this evening but for she does to encourage the church to face up to its responsibilities on its responsibilities on safeguarding, the church pain and suffering the church is because the suffering the church is because the party me people and because it's failures and oversights around safeguarding and also this House has a proper role of scrutiny in this process as it must move forward.

Can we also thank my noble friend member for Middlesbrough South and East for Higgins -- for his considered, thoughtful and harrowing speech this evening and for all the work is done powerfully taken forward on behalf of the survivors of abuse he is working with. I think it is to those people we must look to in taking the way forward to ensure that the church properly recognises the actions must take to ensure these crimes are not repeated in the future.

I also thank him for giving me a chance to make a brief contribution on such a serious matter. I must declare a number of interests ahead of my contribution, both my parents are retired members of clergy in the Church of England and diocese of Carlisle, a member of a church and burn silence in the dioceses of St Andrews in the cottage Episcopal which is a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion for sub formally a safeguarding coordinator and prior to my election coordinator and prior to my election I was on the provincial safeguarding committee to the Scottish Episcopal Church was one of millions of people across the world for whom faith and worship within the anger can community plays a huge and positive part in my life.

We belong to our church because we want to be a force of good. Not just in our own lives, but for our wider community. That's why our congregations should be and must be places where every member is respected, valued and safe, and it is appalling and deeply saddening that this has not been the case for far too many people over so many years in the Church of England and that these safeguarding failures, these crimes, this abuse has been allowed to go on.

We've heard why they've been allowed to go on in this debate this evening, and the failures of leadership which lie behind that. The horrific acts of abuse documented in the independent report of child sexual abuse enquiry in the Church of England and more recently the shocking events investigated by the Macon review must never be allowed to happen again and I believe it's important as we've had this evening from others to recognise the making the case to take forward these important recommendations in these reports focus is not the story and reputation of the church or to discuss who in the leadership has to take ultimate accountability, important though this is, the focus of the process must be bound to the accountability of the church to the survivors of abuse, who have so bravely spoken out about the need for change.

The ISP 11 and so many others. It is appalling and incredible I find that they have not been heard by church leaders as they should have been, and crucially they must be listened to to ensure that these crimes aren't repeated in future, that people in our congregations are safe, that we are actually true to our Christian mission. Through my involvement in safeguarding policy and the Scottish Episcopal church we made significant changes to our policies and processes because we recognise that even though we are a small church we still had to do more to ensure there was proper recognition of the importance of safeguarding in every congregation in the province.

I was assisted in this work by an expert in safeguarding David Strang, former Chief Constable. I'm sure there is much more we can do in our church, crucial to this process for form in the Episcopal Church was both increasing resources for safeguarding but also establishing that fundamental principle of that fundamental principle of independent oversight, safeguarding as well this experience leads me to conclude the Church of England should be listening not only to survivors of abuse who have suffered from its own failures of leadership and safeguarding, but also listening to experts who have investigated safely with such great intensity and so diligently how these appalling events were allowed to happen.

After the vote at Synod last month not to move immediately to independence of safeguarding professionals at all levels of the church, Professor Alexis J said of the decision, it
21:11
Richard Baker Portrait Richard Baker MP (Glenrothes and Mid Fife, Labour)
-
-
will be devastating for victims and survivors whose trust and confidence will absolutely not be restored as a consequence of this decision. Given consequence of this decision. Given the failures of safeguarding which the failures of safeguarding which happened within dioceses, within cathedrals had as well, that appears to me to be a very rational conclusion to what was agreed at conclusion to what was agreed at Synod. We've been assured that the model safeguarding which has been approved will facilitate all approved will facilitate all safeguarding the church moving into an organisation in due course, but an organisation in due course, but it's now nearly 2 years since the churches independent advisory board on safeguarding was dismissed.

I believe the church should now finally act swiftly to complete the process and move to a fully independent structure for safeguarding. Given the scale of the abuse and the suffering caused I hope the Minister will also agree that if vital the government in this House plays our part and shining a light on this process within the church. The victims and survivors of abuse within the church have asked to be heard, they have made their case so powerfully and with such patients despite all they have faced and all they have endured.

It is vital that all after all they have suffered an the indignity with which in their arguments for change that they are heard in the church and in this Parliament as well.
21:13
21:13
21:13
Sean Woodcock Portrait Sean Woodcock MP (Banbury, Labour)
-
-
fallen short after having issues of support and safeguarding the my noble friend made mention however noble friend made mention however that there are one of our clear issues there are examples of good practice in the church, he made practice in the church, he made mention of his own I will report to the dioceses of Oxford last year and independent report said that the dioceses of Oxford had a solid safeguarding foundation which was safeguarding foundation which was delivered by an exceptionally well led and well, blended safeguarding team.

It also commended what it described as a safeguarding first philosophy and congratulated the parishes in the dioceses for the workwear powered -- talented Paris safeguarding officers lead by example and make struggle. I mention it because that should be the standard. It shouldn't be a postcode lottery, that should be the standard across the church. I think it's proof that it can be done in the institution but is not being done in too many cases. What victims want is a victim centred approach and one that is not about protecting the reputation of individuals or the institution.

What we need is practical action and victims must also have confidence quite frankly that those who have been involved in the church's failings are not able to enforce its decision-making in this area, that's why the decision of the General Synod on this is entirely regrettable and want to be entirely regrettable and want to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. I want to thank my honourable friend from Middlesbrough's and East Cleveland
21:15
Jonathan Davies Portrait Jonathan Davies MP (Mid Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
Middlesbrough's and East Cleveland for the sensitive way in which she has brought about this debate. And the detailed way in which she has set out the journey which has perhaps brought us to having this discussion tonight. And I think it's very telling that there are a lot of us members across the House here tonight, because we stand with victims and we are appalled that they have been so many, but I'm sure I speak for many first when I say that we are passionate about the Church of England, what it stands for, but it seeks to do, how it seeks to lift us to another plane and give us hope.

And we want to see it succeed. But it's important that the church gets its relationship with its safeguarding right because so many victims have been failed, victims of physical and sexual abuse, of emotional or financial abuse and victims of coercion. And as the Church of England is the established church, it enjoys a privileged position in this country. It's right that it is accountable to Parliament and that we are having this debate in this way. I also think it's important to note that it's not just the church that has had issues with safeguarding.

As profound as they may be. There has been many sectors across society, not just religious groups organised religions in Christianity and other religions too. Media, education, healthcare, many other sectors can point to issues with very poor safeguarding practices. I think what many people find is particularly disappointing about the churches, they feel that it is a place where they ought to be safe and they ought to be able to trust its leaders. And many of those leaders do an excellent and outstanding job, often in difficult circumstances.

But fundamentally, the church is run by people, the same as those are the sectors that have experienced this too. So in that respect, it is no different. I do just want to touch a little bit on how the church has responded in some respects to some safeguarding issues where in an attempt to redress its failings of the past, it has been ham-fisted in how it has dealt with cases of people who perhaps have not met the threshold for being on the receiving end of sanction, for something which they may or may not have done.

And I'm reminded of the case of Bishop George Bell whose reputation was solid only to be found to have deemed not to have committed any crime at all. And there are instances of that which will never go reported, and those people carry around that burden with them as well, and it's important the church learns to deal with being proactive about safeguarding and supporting victims, that it also learns to ensure that it doesn't take people who should not be in a safeguarding process or should perhaps be investigated but no further action should be taken, it's important that the church understands that it must balance that because if it is taking action against people to safeguard its own reputation, it's failing a whole different set of people too.

And am sorry to have seen some cases like that through the course of my work. So I'm pleased that the church is beginning to come to terms with what it needs to do to put this right so that people trust it more than they have been able to in recent years. And that it's keen to learn lessons, but it's deeply disappointing that the church has not chosen to have an independent process to give people more trust, to remove the almost political priorities of its leaders and their desire to save their reputation, that's reader's right from the top down to parish level my leaders.

In favour of something that can be more objective about individuals cases as well as wider policy. So as I began, we are desperate for the church to succeed. It brings so much to all our communities. There will be food banks to happen because of what the church does. There are social activities that bring people together, and that's aside from all the work it does to support people in their faith and to give them hope. So we do need it to succeed.

It's a custodian of so many of the world's most important buildings, makes a fantastic and huge contribution to our cultural life, but it absolutely must get this Will face an existential threat. And I can't countenance that as an Anglican, as a proud Anglican. I want to see the church succeed, but it must get this right by victims. And it must embed the change needs to embed, change its culture so that it's not characterised in these terms going forward so that we are not having to discuss this issue any further and that the church can get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on with what it is here to do. End of the Backbench

**** Possible New Speaker ****

End of the Backbench contributions and I call the Mr Jess Phillips. I first of all want to thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I first of all want to thank everybody who has spoken in the debate today with special mention to debate today with special mention to the main -- member for Middlesbrough the main -- member for Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East. The passion and detailed manner in which she took the House today through the took the House today through the issues. The stories of victims we have heard today are harrowing, not just in the facts of their abuse but also in the ignorance and the shutdown that has been described by the honourable member for Middlesbrough around in fact Mr X is constituency MP as well.

And I suppose that is the issue that suppose that is the issue that compounds. The Member for Derbyshire talked about this issue being an issue that is faced in many institutions. The Church of England or any religious institution is not alone in having faced safeguarding issues and problems over the years. It is in how we react to that safeguarding challenge and what we put in place that sets things aside.
21:21
Jess Phillips Portrait Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)
-
-
It is not for the government to tell the Church of England how it has to the Church of England how it has to have its processes. And the Synod is have its processes. And the Synod is there to do that. What I would say, and one of the things that was not met listed by the honourable met listed by the honourable gentleman when he was listing institutions that had faced institutions that had faced safeguarding issues is this institution faced safeguarding institution faced safeguarding issues, and I recall and many of the people who are here today were there then, that one of the things that we did here in this institution, and certainly people like me fought for was that we have an independent process to oversee issues of sexual abuse and violence within this institution.

Safeguarding is rightly the responsibility of all, and I'm grateful for the important contributions made today. And I welcome the opportunity to talk about the government's approach to safeguarding. Let me be clear, whilst we... I cannot tell the Synod what it has to do, I condemn the acts of psychological, emotional and physical abuse and sexual abuse against both adults and children. Including where they occur in religious settings or contexts. As with every case of abuse, my thoughts are first and foremost with the victims and survivors.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I understand what the Minister is saying. However, we have a situation where the institution is a situation where the institution is compounding that abuse by the way that they are protecting the people that they are protecting the people in power, the people in power are protecting the perpetrators, and therefore ending up with victims further hurt. I understand the Minister cannot tell the Church of England how to conduct it safeguarding. However, could the safeguarding. However, could the Minister please acknowledge that its failure to conduct a proper safeguarding is compounding that abuse, and is something that the Church of England does have a duty to correct.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will gladly agree with my honourable friend. And what I know honourable friend. And what I know of the years of working on the front line with victims of both historical line with victims of both historical and current abuses, usually sexual abuse, I am talking about in this particular instance is that victims would tell me that what happened to would tell me that what happened to them was horrendous. What continued to happen to them because of to happen to them because of failures of institutions to act is worse.

It is a longer, more traumatic experience, and whether that's our court systems, our policing systems, our local authorities, and in this instance the church. We have opportunities as those who take a role in safeguarding to do the right thing, and it's not always easy. It's not always easy to do the right thing straight away and to get everything perfect, and I don't think anybody is asking for that. But it's very very important that the processes that are put in place, and we have to do this as a nation, let alone what the church has to do, are there to make sure that even if the perfect outcome doesn't happen, justice is not always served.

But that the process people go through doesn't cause further harm. That should be the bare minimum that victims should have two expect. We are committed to tackling all forms of abuse against children wherever they occur, including the despicable crime of child sexual abuse. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I thank the Minister. Very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister. Very grateful. I welcome the government's commitment to implementing the! Recommendations, particularly the introduction of mandatory reporting, which goes a long way for the settings first of does the Minster agree particular in relation to having more independent safeguarding processes that as we work to improve safeguarding in the Church of safeguarding in the Church of England which also take the opportunity to bolster safeguarding within smaller religious groups, particular high control religious groups where public awareness of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scale of failings is very low. Absolute. And I will go to talk about mandatory reporting. The about mandatory reporting. The fundamental is that big or small, fundamental is that big or small, rich or poor, if you are in a position of power and responsibility, and you are working with children or vulnerable adults, you have a responsibility to you have a responsibility to safeguarding. And I would hope that large institutions, whether that's governance, whether that's larger religious institutions, would want to always lead by example in this regard.

The government has included as has been mentioned the commitment to introduce the mandatory duty for those working with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making it a clear legal requirement for anyone in regulated activity, which will include the church, to relating to children in England, to report to the police or local authority if they are made aware a child is being sexually abused. We are pleased that this was introduced in the Crime and Policing Bill last week. We have also committed to making grooming and a -- an aggravating factor, and we will set out a clear time undertaking for the 20 recommendations of the final report of the independent enquiry into child sexual abuse.

We too assignation had recommendations from Professor Alexis J. We like to do reviews first institutions and governments like to do reviews. And you won't always agree with every recommendation or even be able to do every recommendation. But what is the point of doing constant reviews if when you just a person who stands and says lessons will be learned, lessons have to actually be learned. Actions following on, the sort of litany of reviews that was detailed by my honourable friend from Middlesbrough, it would seem as if there is probably a lot of actions that could be currently being undertaken.

The government is committed to safeguarding and protecting children from harm across all settings, and there are already many legal powers placed in place to protect children and local authorities have a legal duty to investigate where they believe a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. Keeping children safe in all settings is our priority. And we are driving forward important work, including updating guidance for staff and parents regarding out-of-school settlements, settings strengthening guidance for local authorities on the legal powers to intervene, and the upcoming call for evidence will inform long-term proposals for safeguarding reform.

The government has introduced the landmark Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill into Parliament, which puts protecting children at its heart. In addition to other measures like the 2023 update to the governments working together to safeguard children statutory guidance. The bill will improve information sharing across and within agencies, strengthening the role of education in multiagency safeguarding arrangements and require the implementation of multiagency child protection teams so the children are better protected in both schools and out-of-school settings. We will not let up in our efforts to safeguard and protect children, and adults.

It is crucial that we continue to step up prevention efforts, driver reporting, bring more offenders to justice and to ensure that victims and survivors receive better care

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the Minister is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the Minister is saying. In the light that there has been cited that there could be a been cited that there could be a been cited that there could be a technical reason with the Charity commission as to the roles of trustees within the structures of cathedrals, would she meet with the Charity commission to ensure that if Charity commission to ensure that if there is any impediment that has worked through and if necessary this place legislates to remove that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impediment? I thought the honourable lady was going to ask me a very technical question about trustees and cathedrals which I would have characteristically Femi stood up and said I don't know the answer to. But actually I can absolutely say is commit to meeting with the Charity commission -- for me, to talk with them about what the impediment is in this instance appears to be. Because actually it almost certainly has read across for safeguarding and other institutions and if this is in fact an impediment then as the Minister for Safeguarding I would be keen to find out what impediment that is.

There should be no status that is protected from scrutiny and cultures of silence, through wilful ignorance or worse malign intent to safeguard reputations above children must end. It must end wherever we see it. Lamenting and repenting is all well and good. But what my mum used to say to me is sorry is just a word you say, changing your behaviour proves to me that you are sorry. We are a debt to the victims to come forward about any institution abuse.

We own them more than lamenting and repenting, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know them change. The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Ayes" have it.
13:59
None Portrait Oral questions: Housing, Communities and Local Government
-

21:38
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Housing, Communities and Local Government
-

21:38
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Housing, Communities and Local Government
-

21:38
14:00
21:58
14:22
None Portrait Oral questions: Housing, Communities and Local Government
-

22:00
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page